National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Education, and Dawn Bowden has the first question.

Thank you, Dawn. 'Our National Mission' is clear on our commitment to deliver real and lasting improvements in the educational experience and outcomes of our disadvantaged learners. Adopted children can often face challenges and barriers in their education, and improving their well-being, alongside that of all learners, is a key theme running through our educational reforms. 

Thank you for that response, Cabinet Secretary. We've both just attended the launch of the report called 'Bridging the Gap', which deals with the educational well-being of adopted children. And I'm sure that all of us want to play our part in ensuring that every adopted or looked-after child has an equal chance in school. And while I know that budget decisions are for debate in the financial round, can you assure me that the recommendations made in this report regarding staff training and awareness, the creation of environments in schools that are supportive to adopted children, and steps to ensure the collation of outcome data for adopted children, will form part of your considerations in taking this work forward?

Thank you very much, Dawn. It is important that we recognise that resources aren't necessarily the answer to all the issues that are faced by looked-after and adopted children in our education system. But the looked-after children element of the pupil development grant actually stands, for 2018-19, at approximately £4.5 million, and that is available to support the education of adopted children. I'm very keen for myself and my officials to work with representatives of Adoption UK Cymru to look at the asks in the report, especially with regard to the collection of data. I know that there is some frustration that we're not able to easily identify educational outcomes for adopted children because that's not part of our pupil level annual school census data at the moment. Whilst I would not want to be in a position to force parents to reveal or divulge information regarding adoption if that's not something that they feel comfortable with or want to do, I understand the rationale behind wanting to improve the data collection, and I'm very happy to continue to work with officials and those with an interest in this area to look to see how this can be achieved proportionately and sensitively.

As one of those with an interest in this area and who has discussed it previously with the Cabinet Secretary, it's very positive that, in Wales, we have the pupil development grant giving options to free-school-meals children, but also to looked-after children and to those who are adopted. And, of course, in most cases, adoptive parents will want the school to be aware and will want to make sure that the school gets that extra support. How is progress going in terms of those data sharing, and, in particular, has the Cabinet Secretary learnt any lessons from some of the provisions they have for data sharing in this area with social services and adopted children in England?

Well, as I said, Mark, the door is open, and I would very much welcome a continued discussion about how we can improve data collection for adopted children, as long as we don't force parents to divulge information that they may not want to divulge. What's also important is that we continue to look at the education of these children in the round, and that sometimes does mean that we need to work across departments, in local education authorities, specifically with social services, so that there is a greater understanding in how best we can support individual children's needs. The PDG looked-after children element, as I said, this year is worth £4.5 million. That's administered at a regional level, and we continue to work with our regional consortia to ensure that that money, those resources, are deployed to best effect.

I thought what was striking from the event that both Dawn and I, and other Assembly Members, attended this afternoon was that many of the things that they're asking for actually do not require additional resources. It is about changing the mindset in some of our schools to ensure that there is an atmosphere that responds appropriately to children who are adopted. So, for instance, when a child who has experienced trauma, or issues around attachment, the teachers, within themselves, know what is the appropriate way to support that child. And that's about then ongoing professional learning development as well as changes in our initial teacher education provision.

Welsh Government delivers programmes to assist individuals to upskill while in work. We're committed to delivering 100,000 apprenticeships this Assembly term, and we also support employers to upskill their workforce via our Flexible Skills Programme. 

This morning, with the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, I visited The Number Hub, which is a small business in Taff's Well, and they were talking very much about advances in automation and technological change. What specific actions will the Welsh Government be taking to prepare for the jobs of the future, but particularly focusing on the skills needed in the small firms sector and the kind of jobs that people might want to go into in small and medium-sized enterprises in that sector in the future? What changes are you anticipating, and how will adults and learners be prepared for those jobs?  

Well, I think the great benefit and advantage that small businesses have is that they can move much, much quicker than big businesses. So, that is the advantage they have in a rapidly changing situation. So, I think it's really important that they take advantage of that ability—perhaps the really big companies find it more difficult to turn supertankers around. So, being responsive to those digital innovations, I think, is really important.

What we can do is we can give skills support now already. We've got this Flexible Skills Programme. But I think the other thing that I'm really keen to see develop is this pilot programme that we're going to be developing, where we have individual learning accounts to make sure that we're filling those skills gaps that some of those SMEs may find. I've been speaking to a large company this morning, who were telling me that they are already finding difficulty in recruiting people with digital and automotive skills. And that conversation about how flexible we can be, how fast we can be in reorganising things—. I think our Working Wales programme will give us opportunities from next year to respond much more quickly and tailor things around the individuals, but also will make sure that we have that really close dialogue with people, with SMEs in particular, but also with the large companies in Wales. 

Minister, part-time education allows adults already in employment to attain the higher skill levels necessary to ensure economic growth. However, Welsh Government figures have shown that part-time learner numbers in further education institutions and in local authority adult community learning have declined significantly in Wales. What is the Welsh Government doing to reverse this decline to ensure Wales has the skilled workforce it needs and that everyone can access the training they need to achieve their full potential in their life in Wales? Thank you.

Thank you, Mohammad. I think you're right—I'm afraid to say that there has been a decline in the number of people who have accessed part-time learning. That, of course, was partly as a response to the austerity measures that have been introduced, and we had to prioritise funding and the priority was given to early years education. But I think, with the changing nature of employment—the fact that we are going to see this shift to automation and digital skills—we are going to have to think very carefully about how we reskill people for the future. So, this idea of this individual learning account is about addressing that very issue that you're putting your finger on, and we'll see how that develops. Those individual learning accounts will give people an opportunity, as I say, to reskill in those areas where we know there are skills gaps and there's an opportunity for people to reskill. We'll need to reskill people already in work where we can see that the jobs will be disappearing in future, but also upskill those people who perhaps haven't accessed the workforce before.

Questions now from party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd. 

Thank you, Llywydd. I’m sure the Minister will be aware that Carmarthenshire County Council has launched its strategic plan for Welsh in education this week, which is an ambitious plan and one that has been approved by the Welsh Government and it’s put the county on the road to increasing the number of Welsh speakers significantly. Of course, it will provide an opportunity for every pupil to be bilingual by the end of key stage 2, by the time that they leave primary school. Will you confirm to us, therefore, that you, as Minister, and the Welsh Government will give full support to Carmarthenshire council as they start this journey to implement the WESP, because it’s possible it won’t be comfortable at times, but, as they are working to achieve your ambition as a Government in terms of the number of Welsh speakers, would you please confirm that you will give all possible support under all circumstances for this strategy?

Well, may I say that I am supportive of what Carmarthenshire is doing, of course? Their report and their plans are set out clearly in the WESP that they’ve submitted to the Government and, of course, we support that. I opened a school in Llanelli, in Carmarthenshire, last week, which is a school that is transferring from being a non-Welsh school to being a bilingual school and going along that path. That’s exactly what we want to see, in a relatively deprived area. So, they’re actually taking the steps we wish to see. But it’s not just in Carmarthenshire, of course, we wish to see this happening; we’d like to see that replicated throughout the whole of Wales. There are still six WESPs that have not been approved, but we are actually pushing those counties to go along this path. So, everybody knows our objective, and, in order to attain that aim, everybody will have to move in the same direction. I do think that local government is much more aware now.

I didn’t quite hear an unequivocal confirmation that you will support the council. Maybe you can actually make that clear in answer to my next question, if you wish to do so.

At another extreme, in terms of your ambition in Wales to see growth in Welsh-medium education, many of us were shocked to see that Flintshire County Council last week had considered a possible option—and I’m pleased to say that they didn’t proceed with that ultimately—to scrap free school transport for pupils to Welsh-medium schools. It’s not a statutory requirement and we all know what the financial climate is at the moment, so this is a question that will arise year on year across 22 local authorities in Wales. Ultimately, that could mean that an authority will take that decision. So, my question to you is: rather than waiting for someone to make that possible decision and then trying to grapple with that, what is the Government currently doing, and what work are you doing with your fellow members of Government, to ensure that councils don’t take such steps, because that would not only undermine the provision of Welsh-medium education, but be entirely detrimental to Welsh-medium education in many counties in Wales?

May I say that I’m very pleased that Flintshire council didn’t go through with that proposal? The proposal didn't come from the council, but I’m very pleased that they have dismissed it. Of course, I do think it would have a detrimental effect on the numbers of children attending bilingual schools, if this transport wasn’t available. Of course, I would urge local councils to ensure that they do take this into consideration. It will be something that they will need to consider, and it may be something that we may ask the WESPs to set out clearly, and for those who are aware of what we wish to see in future, to ensure that they are aware that this is a consideration when they are submitting the new WESP for the next session. Of course, people have the right to Welsh-medium education, but we must ensure that it is easy for them to access that education.

Well, yes, and it’s important therefore, in terms of the WESPs, that, if you are talking about creating greater expectation, the regulation surrounding those WESPs reflects that aspiration and I would be very eager to see that happening. We know that Aled Roberts has been looking at this area and continues to work for Government in this area, and your predecessor—. And I’m sure you would wish to commend one of the recommendations that has been made, namely that we need to simplify the process of categorising schools in terms of language, which is something you referred to in the context of your visit to Carmarthenshire last week.

Now, I also read an article by Laura McAllister in the Western Mail over the weekend that discussed not only simplifying, but taking it further so that every primary school in Wales is bilingual and that every child starting secondary school at 11 is able to understand and communicate through the medium of both Welsh and English. That would accord with Plaid Cymru’s policy, but it would also reflect the recommendations made by Professor Sioned Davies’s report back in 2013—and I have raised this with you previously—namely that every child should learn the Welsh language as part of an educational continuum. So, can you give us an update on any progress that’s been made on that front by the Government? You’ve talked in the past about introducing some of this as part of the reforms happening around the curriculum, but I truly feel that we shouldn’t have to wait until the middle of the next decade until we see some of this being delivered, and that we should be doing more, as Carmarthenshire is currently doing, in beginning that journey now. So, can you tell us what progress the Government has made in that area?

I am most eager to ensure that we don’t wait until the new curriculum is introduced, because I don’t wish to lose another generation of children who won’t have the opportunity to receive a good education in Welsh as a second language. And so we must improve on the status quo, because you can have 13 years of Welsh lessons and come out at the other end speaking very little Welsh. So, we need to look at that, and that is why, last Friday, we held a symposium in Swansea by bringing experts together. We asked for a report from Swansea University and the University of Reading. They presented their ideas on how we can improve the methods of teaching a second language and what is the best practice throughout the world. Lots of people from all over Wales came together—those who are training through the medium of Welsh—and they were very pleased because this progressed Professor Sioned Davies’s report. She attended the meeting, and what she was saying was, 'Now there is evidence behind what I was recommending years ago'. 

So, today, I have requested a follow-up to know exactly what will now happen as a result of that symposium. We know exactly what needs to be done. We do know that we need to improve the teaching of Welsh as a second language. One of our greatest problems, of course, is to ensure that we have sufficient good Welsh teachers and tutors. So, although you would wish to see Laura McAllister’s ideas coming to fruition, the fact is we don’t have a sufficient number of teachers, and so we need to take this incrementally and ensure that we have a sufficient number of Welsh teachers and tutors. We are making a substantial effort in that regard, and we’re giving additional funding of £5,000 to people who are training through the medium of Welsh. 

Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, what action are you taking to improve public satisfaction in Welsh schools?

Darren, I'm sure that you are aware of 'Education in Wales: Our national mission', a mission that is to raise standards, close the attainment gap and ensure that we have an education system in Wales that is a source of national pride and enjoys public confidence. That's why we've embarked on this radical programme of education reform in this nation.

You'll be aware that the national survey for Wales was published last week, and it showed a significant deterioration in satisfaction levels amongst the public in our secondary schools in particular. So, it's quite clear that the public are rapidly losing confidence in your ability to deliver against the national mission that you have set. And it shouldn't come as a surprise, because we all know that last year we had our worst GCSE results in a decade, the last set of international tests that we participated in put us in the bottom half of the world rankings, and we're at the bottom of the UK league table in those PISA scores as well. And the number of Welsh students, of course, attending the UK's top universities has also plummeted by 10 per cent over the past three years. So, I'm sure that you would agree with me, Cabinet Secretary, that whatever you're doing at the moment simply isn't working and isn't building the confidence that you say you're trying to build. Why is it that Welsh learners are being left behind, and what on earth are you going to do about it?

Well, Darren, of course, when one in four parents expresses less than perfect satisfaction with their children's secondary education, then I want to see that figure improve. I want all parents in Wales to feel that their secondary schools are doing a good job by their pupils. That's why we are reforming our GCSEs; that's why we are reforming the way in which we train our teachers; that's why, in September, we will launch a national approach to professional learning for existing teachers; that's why we're investing record amounts of money in the pupil development grant to ensure that our poorest learners get what they need in our schools; that's why we have created the national leadership academy; and that's why, this summer, we will see the full first cohort of the Seren network taking their A-levels and going on to those top universities. We are embarked upon a radical set of education reforms, one that I am confident—and, more importantly, I believe the profession, and, I believe, the public can have confidence in—will deliver the step change in Welsh education that I agree that we need.

It's clearly a set of reforms that the public don't have confidence in, which is why satisfaction rates are plummeting under your watch as Cabinet Secretary. I noticed, Cabinet Secretary, that you didn't mention funding in your response, because we all know that school budgets are under significant pressure. Now, according to the NASWUT—they have said that the funding gap per pupil, per year, between England and Wales now stands at £678 per pupil. This is in spite of the fact that for every £1 spent on a school in England, the Welsh Government receives £1.20 to spend on schools here. Estyn, your own inspectorate, has warned you that funding is jeopardising schools' ability to deliver the new curriculum once it's going to be introduced. Now, do you accept that there's a lack of investment, that you need to do better in terms of getting money into the front line in our schools, and what are you going to do to make sure that schools have the resources to deliver the first-class education that our children deserve? 

Well, of course, Darren, I absolutely accept that there are funding pressures within the education system, because I have the unenviable task of having to make those tough choices, but I'm afraid this is what a Tory austerity agenda looks like. You cannot say on the one hand that you want austerity and on the other hand say you want further investment in our public services, when your colleagues in London are doing exactly the opposite. Presiding Officer, let me explain: over the term of this Assembly, we will invest £100 million to raise school standards. We will invest £2.4 billion in band B of our twenty-first century schools programme. We will invest, only this year, over £90 million in the pupil development grant, affecting the life chances of our most disadvantaged students. But I'm afraid I'm not going to be lectured by a Conservative politician whose mantra in another place is to cut public expenditure and not to invest.

UKIP spokesperson, Michelle Brown.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, I realise that you'll be reluctant to speak about a specific case, so I'm just using this as an illustration. I have a constituent who was told by the local council that her 11-year-old daughter would be expected to get on a school bus, then change onto a connecting public bus. to go to school some 15 to 20 miles away. It's probably not an uncommon story across Wales. A while ago, as well, I took a trip on public transport with a group of young people travelling from their high school back to their home. Although it was a great joy to meet with very sensible and bright young people, it was concerning, because an 11-year-old could have been asked to do that journey on their own. It involved coming into contact with busy roads and complete strangers, and decent and honest though the vast majority of fellow passengers will be on public transport, we do have a duty to safeguard children and young people, and I'm sure you'll agree with me there. So, what checks do you require local authorities and schools to undertake before subcontracting school transport, or deciding that children must travel on public transport to school?

Firstly, can I say that a great many children travel to school on public transport and they do that successfully and safely every day? School transport actually comes under the portfolio of my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for the economy, and the rules regarding school transport are set out in the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008, which was passed by the Assembly a number of years ago. Under that legislation, parents have the right to ask their local authority for a safe routes assessment to be carried out by the local authority to assure them that the routes that local authorities are asking young people to travel on are properly risk assessed and are properly looked at in terms of learner safety. I would say to your constituent, via yourself, that they need to pursue that first option with their local education authority to carry out a safe routes to school analysis and to have that open for discussion.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. I totally empathise with the principle that provision should be decided locally and that, given the geography in Wales, planning transport routes can be a challenge, but there's a distinct lack of consistency and it's all a bit of a hodgepodge. Depending on what school you go to, you might travel by school bus or public transport. You might travel in a completely different way from your neighbour who is attending a school maybe just down the road. Now, I know what you said about the transport Secretary having primary responsibility for this, but at the end of the day you are Cabinet Secretary for Education, so you surely have an interest in how that school transport is provided. I also understand that there are financial pressures on local authorities and also on you as Cabinet Secretary. So, have you considered and have you spoken to the Cabinet Secretary for transport with a view to conducting a review of the way school transport is delivered and whether it could be simplified, provision pooled across schools and perhaps county boundaries, to deliver a more effective service for children and people while saving money that could be diverted onto other things?

Well, I have to say, with regard to compulsory school education, all local authorities have to abide by the learner travel Measure, which states very clearly who is and who is not entitled to free school transport. It also sets out that expectation with regards to access to Welsh-medium education. It also says that any route undertaken by a child, especially if that route is a walking route, has to be subject to a safe routes to school assessment. Now, for the Member to suggest that local authorities are not working across boundary or looking at innovative solutions to deliver school transport—that simply isn't the case. I know from my own constituency that some of my constituents travel out of county for their education because that nearest suitable school happens to be one across a border, and the county facilitates that. If the Member has specific concerns, she really does need, in the first instance, to take it up with the local education authority and the local county council.

Well, actually, Cabinet Secretary, my question was about whether you personally, as Cabinet Secretary for Education, have considered reviewing the way transport is arranged, at a high level, but I'll go on to my final question.

Parents are reporting to me that cuts in local authority funding are resulting in children and young people with disabilities who were previously taken to school by taxi being asked to travel to school on the school bus. Now, that's a really good thing for the child or young person, and it's better for the environment and it's cheaper as well, but if they're prone to aggressive behaviour or challenging behaviour, it's not really fair on the other children not to ensure that an appropriate adult is on hand on the bus to provide support to that child or young person. So, what resources are you going to be putting in place to ensure that children and young people with additional learning needs and other disabilities, and those around them, are safe and supported while travelling to and from school? And please don't give me a lecture about the Measure again.

The Member does raise an important point. Where a child with additional learning needs is able to travel safely with their peers on school transport, then that is something to be considered, but we also need to consider the entire safety of the cohort on school transport. That's why we have behaviour codes that parents and children have to sign up to if they're travelling on school transport. With regard to additional learning needs, again, it will be an important part of the development of a child's individual development plan that their transport needs and transport requirements are duly considered alongside their educational requirements. But I have to say, Presiding Officer, that whilst we have legislation in this regard via our new ALN Bill, it really is a matter for individual local authorities to make provision for their learners. It is impossible, from the centre, to make individual transport decisions for individual children.

Thank you, Caroline. We continue to invest unprecedented amounts of funding through the pupil development grant: £187 million over the next two years will support schools across Wales to improve the outcomes for our disadvantaged learners, and this includes more than £25 million in the South Wales West region alone.

Thank you for that answer. Cabinet Secretary, in Neath Port Talbot, the percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals who attain level 2 or above fell last year, and fell quite significantly. The numbers are at their lowest since 2011. Cabinet Secretary, in light of this, and given recent comments about the effectiveness of the pupil deprivation grant, do you believe your policies are working for pupils in my region?

Well, firstly, can I correct the Member? It's no longer called the pupil deprivation grant, it is now called the pupil development grant. The Member is correct to say that after a number of years where we have seen an increase in the level 2 plus attainment level at GCSE for our children on free school meals and our looked-after children, unfortunately that cohort of children coped less well last summer with the introduction of the new GCSE specifications. We have conducted work internally to better understand why that cohort of children proved to be less resilient, especially as we see this year the introduction of yet new Welsh GCSE specs, for instance in science. 

I absolutely am committed, for the period of this Government, to continuing to fund the pupil development grant. In the independent evaluation that was undertaken of that grant, schools reported that they found it invaluable, and my job is to ensure that not only are those resources available to schools, but that individual schools that are in receipt of this resource spend it most effectively on interventions that we know work.

I was reading up, before the question today, and there was an Ipsos MORI and Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods report into the pupil development grant, and they were saying that while the pupil development grant had provided many positives, it was difficult to see whether it was solely as a result of the pupil development grant as to whether progress had been made, and that some of the changes had come before the pupil development grant had been implemented. Now, I know this is the key factor in trying to change the outlook of people who are from deprived backgrounds and so can you tell us what more analysis you've made since that particular report in 2017 to ensure that you know full well that it is the pupil development grant and the funding entwined with that that is delivering on those attainment levels, as opposed to something else that may be coming through from another place in terms of themes in the educational workforce planning?

Well, Bethan, this is an issue of social justice for me. No child's educational outcomes should be dictated to because of the circumstances of their birth or of their family's ability to support their education. That's why I make no apologies, as I said, for spending over £90 million this year on the education of those learners.

Now, what we know is that schools find this resource invaluable, that two thirds of schools are using the resource effectively to make a difference to those most vulnerable learners, but I want all schools to make effective use of this resource, and that's why we have, via our regional consortia, newly employed specific advisers to work with schools to ensure that this money that is being made available to individual schools is used to best effect. What we also know is that we need to intervene as soon as possible in a child's education, and that's why we have doubled the amount of PDG going into our youngest pupils' education, because if we can ensure that there is no attainment gap at the age of 11, that gives us a better chance of ensuring that children go on to obtain very good GCSE results. But I'm always keen to look to how we can develop and spread best practice, and that includes consideration of a Wales-specific Sutton Trust toolkit. At the moment, that is the gold standard against which schools are asked to judge decisions they're making about expenditure. I believe it's now time to look at developing a specific Welsh toolkit that recognises the specific cultural circumstances of the Welsh education system.

Thank you. Schools from across Wales are now embracing digital learning ahead of our new exciting curriculum.  I was delighted to see schools from north Wales contribute to our recent national digital learning event, and these schools are supporting others to realise our national mission to make all of our learners digitally competent.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. I read recently that in China they are pushing the boundaries with regard to coding skills, and even children of preschool age are learning the basics, often using online apps and lessons. It is now just about one year since your statement on 'Cracking the code' that you would be encouraging coding clubs across Wales. Cabinet Secretary, one year on, how many coding clubs are there, how many children have benefited, and how are you evaluating any effectiveness?

Thank you. As you said, Mandy, last year we announced investment of over £1 million in developing code clubs across Wales, and we have seen an increase in that. I will write to the Member with the exact figures for participants if we are able to get them.FootnoteLink Only last week at the national digital learning event I was able to meet children from the length and breadth of Wales who are using code to develop educational resources, apps, and in some cases those apps are very close to being commercialised, and actually being taken to market.

In the Member's own region, I'd like to highlight the good practice at St Christopher's School in Wrexham. It's one of our largest special schools in Wales, and they have a very successful coding club that many of their children are participating in, recognising that these skills are applicable to all of our children, regardless of their additional learning needs, and we will continue to support that good practice across the nation.

Question 5 [OAQ52421] was withdrawn. Therefore, question 6, Russell George.

The Welsh Government, regional consortia and local authorities are collectively supporting schools in Powys to improve educational standards, in line with our priorities set out in 'Our National Mission'.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your answer. NASUWT have condemned the pupil funding gap, which currently stands at nearly £700 per pupil compared to maintained schools in England. Can I ask what you're doing to address the funding gap, which, according to the union, is having the effect of, and I quote here, 

'the narrowing of the curriculum in some schools and the loss of talented teachers and support staff to redundancy'?

As I said earlier, we are investing £100 million over the course of this Assembly term in raising school standards. We are investing over £2 billion with regard to school buildings, as well as a large number of initiatives aimed at addressing specific needs within the curriculum. But I have to say, Presiding Officer, that it's only a few weeks ago that the Conservative members of Powys County Council voted against an option that could have seen extra resources going to Powys schools. Maybe he should have a word with his council colleagues.

Jenny Rathbone isn't here to ask question 7 [OAQ52412]. Question 8 [OAQ52425] was withdrawn. Therefore, question 9, Paul Davies.

I will indeed, Paul. I remain fully committed to meeting the needs of all of our learners, including those with autism. Our ambitious additional learning needs reforms will completely overhaul the existing system for supporting learners and will put in place an integrated, collaborative process of assessment, planning and monitoring of support that is delivered.

Cabinet Secretary, I've received representations from constituents who are concerned that learners with autism spectrum disorder are at a disadvantage when taking the GCSE English exam due to their impaired social communication and social interaction, which of course means sitting the same test as their neurotypical peers, and makes it much more difficult for them. In light of this unfairness, can you tell us what discussions have actually taken place with examination providers regarding the GCSE English exam, and whether there is scope for learners with ASD to sit a different type of examination for this subject, so that these learners are not at a disadvantage in the future?

Paul, I'm sorry to hear that some of your constituents feel that the English language GCSE paper that was set this year was not appropriate for their children's needs. I am aware that a number of the questions on that paper, for instance, referred to explaining what a 'selfie' was, explaining what 'going viral' was, and the whole issue around social media. Of course, there may be some children who are more familiar and enthusiastic about those activities than perhaps other children.

There is an expectation on our examination boards to ensure that our examinations are fair to all learners. I give you a commitment that I will raise this specific instance around the English GCSE paper with Qualifications Wales, because, of course, qualifications are set independently of Welsh Government, but, clearly, we want there to be a fair playing field for all children who are entered for examinations.

The Welsh Government does not fund schools directly. Local authorities are responsible for the funding of schools in their counties.

Thank you. As you're aware, the service pupil premium is available in England to support service children in education, and the Royal British Legion is calling for schools in Wales to have a similar fund for approximately 2,500 children who currently attend schools in Wales. It's very positive that the Welsh Government announced £200,000 funding to support armed services children for schools to bid into for this year, but there's concern about what might follow. So, how do you therefore respond to the call from the legion and the wider armed forces community in Wales for a service pupil premium, as in England, so that all schools receive the funding for every service child?

Mark, I'm very glad that schools have been able to apply for additional resources that the Welsh Government has made available this year to support the educational needs of armed forces children following the cuts made to that funding by the department of defence under your Government in London.

Let me be clear: we continue to look to see whether there is evidence to suggests that those children who are the children of our armed forces personnel are at an educational disadvantage, in the same way that we know, for instance, that our poorer children are, that our looked-after children are, and that children who have experienced adoption often are. And we will continue to look, within the confines of the resources available, at how we can continue to support, as we are already doing this year, those children. I am grateful to the armed forces community for the service they give our nation, and I do not want that service to have a detrimental effect on their children's education, and we will do what we can to ensure that that does not happen.

Thank you, Mick. We already consider absence due to disability when compiling our statistics on absenteeism from school. For both primary and secondary schools, we collect a range of statistics on absenteeism by pupil characteristic, which includes data related to special educational needs.   

Thank you for that answer, and, of course, I think, we all understand that schools feel how important it is to have their attendance figures as high as possible and how important good attendance is within schools and for the education of children. What I've had raised with me by a number of families, though, is that those children who have significant disabilities that will require them to have regular absences from school for treatment and so on—the system seems to be developing whereby, in order to encourage attendance, there are systems of rewards of attendance given out at school to encourage, and there are various systems like that around Wales. But, of course, the response that I'm getting back from some of the families, and this goes beyond just my own constituency, is that you have these children saying, 'Well, why can't I ever win a certificate? Why can't I get an award? Somehow, I'm failing within that.' And it seems to me that this is something that is worth looking at. I don't think there's anything malicious within this, but I think there's a genuine problem that has being emerging that needs to be looked at to ensure that a child who has a disability and may not be able to attend fully should be getting a certificate because they are attending to the maximum of their capacity, and we need to ensure that that sort of approach, I think, gets resolved.

Mick, thank you so much for raising this, and I completely agree with you that in the drive to encourage overall attendance, children with a disability should not feel penalised or discouraged or inadequate in any way. I do recognise that rewards can incentivise other pupils to attend, but it cannot be beyond the wit of individual schools to be able to understand that for some children periods of absence, either because of ill health or because of the necessity of attending a multitude of appointments, in facilities that are often a long way from school, which means they can't even go to school for half a day or part of a session—they should not be penalised in that way.

Our statutory guidance 'Supporting learners with healthcare needs' also emphasises that point, that it is inappropriate to penalise children for absenteeism as a result of their disability. I will look to see what communication methods we have with our teaching profession and our schools and LEAs to reinforce the message in that guidance that those practices that are in danger of discriminating against children because of their disability are not appropriate or acceptable. Indeed, we need to find different ways in which we can recognise the achievements that those children are making in their schools, sometimes very much against the odds.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item, therefore, is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services. Question 1 [OAQ52426] is withdrawn. Question 2, Caroline Jones.

Thank you for the question. I have been absolutely clear that overspending by health boards is unacceptable. The Welsh Government is providing targeted intervention support to those boards in deficit to develop sustainable financial plans. With this support, both Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board and Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board both achieved an improved financial position in 2017 compared to the previous year. I have also announced £27 million of additional recurrent funding to Hywel Dda as a consequence of the zero-based review to place the board on a fair funding basis going forward. And, of course, I've issued the next 18-month special measures improvement framework for Betsi Cadwaladr, setting out my very clear expectations for improvement. 

Cabinet Secretary, my local health board, ABMU, has a deficit of over £3 million a month. In order to address this deficit, the health board are proposing to reduce the number of hospital beds that are available. Cabinet Secretary, given that bed occupancy rates in my region are nearly 90 per cent, do you consider the proposal to reduce the number of available beds to be safe?

Thank you for the question. I think it's been positive that ABM had a better financial outturn than the previous year and I want to be positive about their prospects for further improvement, until they get to a position that is generally acceptable when they do live within their means, and indeed they provide an acceptable level of performance right across the whole of their responsibility. 

The current beds consultation should not be driven by financial measures. My understanding is that they're trying to set out a case for changing where care is provided because alternative services are available. That is not driven by money; that is actually driven by where do you provide the right care at the right time and in the right place. I would not support the removing of beds from our system simply as a financial measure. The change in bed capacity and where it is is a different issue. As I say, there is an ongoing consultation. Today is the last day, and if anyone has not taken part in the consultation, I would urge them to make their views clear.

Why has Welsh Government, together with health boards, not done more to reign in the huge amount of spending on agency staff? Couldn't he have better control of these deficits if that was done?

In fact, last year, I issued measures to have a cap on agency staff and that made a real difference in the last quarter of the last year. The challenge now is to not just see the fruits of a full year of that, but to take wider action as well, which is why the ongoing conversation is that we need to come to an end point about changing the use of both agency and bank staff. Because I think there is more opportunity about the way in which the bank is used rather than agency staff, and the way that the quality of care is provided, as well as the financial measures.

So, I am looking for further progress. We've actually managed to take out, largely, some of the higher end agencies as well, but this will continue to be an issue about the financial sustainability of our system. It also means that, in some parts of our healthcare system, we'll need to change the way that care is delivered, because it's actually difficult to recruit people to some of the ways of delivering care that we currently have. So, there is a range of different measures to take, but it will of course be an area that I expect further scrutiny on here, and indeed the director general has regular scrutiny in the Public Accounts Committee on this issue as well.

Thank you for the question. Our tobacco control delivery plan, published in September last year, outlines the actions we are taking to further reduce smoking levels in Wales. For instance, I recently launched a consultation on regulations to prohibit smoking on hospital grounds, school grounds, local authority playgrounds, and the outdoor areas of registered childcare settings.

Cabinet Secretary, the Welsh Government smoking ban has helped reduce smoking, but it remains the leading cause of serious illness and avoidable early deaths in Wales, responsible, according to Action on Smoking and Health, for around 5,500 deaths every year, and the Welsh Government's target of reducing smoking prevalence to 16 per cent by 2020 will not be achieved on current projections. I welcome the provisions of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 to enable further restrictions, as you've mentioned, and indeed the ability that that legislation gives to designate additional places as smoke-free, which I believe, for example, might include outdoor areas of cafes and restaurants, and town and city centres. Do you agree that extending restrictions in that way will further protect our people from passive smoking, help de-normalise smoking and encourage smokers to quit? 

Thank you for the question. I recognise that there may be evidence about further progress we could make by taking further action on smoking because, as you say, it is the leading cause of avoidable harm, and we need to do more to help people to quit, because the final point you made is just that. How do we help people to quit? By making sure that appropriate services are in place and, indeed, the way in which that service is provided. So, I expect that we'll see more being delivered within the community pharmacy as well, as part of what the future is likely to look like. And it will continue to be a topic of a regular conversation, because whenever we have a public health discussion and whenever we have a conversation about a major killer, we talk about the same things: smoking, alcohol, diet and exercise.

So, the regulations that I've already announced we're consulting on, we'll go forward with those and listen to the public about what else they want to see. The complaints I have from some people that don't want us to take action on making smoking more difficult are ones that I recognise, but not ones that will take this Government off course. And I will, of course, listen to the evidence about the possibility of future action to help achieve our main aim of de-normalising smoking here in Wales.     

Cabinet Secretary, Public Health England recently published its evidence review of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products. The review states that vaping poses only a small fraction of the risks of smoking and that switching completely from smoking to vaping conveys considerable health benefits over continued smoking. It goes on to say that vaping is at least 95 per cent less harmful than smoking. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree with Public Health England that vaping should be widely encouraged as a way to help people quit smoking in Wales?  

Thank you for the question. We ran through this in the first version of the public health Bill that was not passed before the last Assembly election. At that time, there was real concern about the use of e-cigarettes, and it still remains, about the fact that they're often targeted at younger people, not as an alternative to smoking, and that we also can't be clear about what's in them because we don't regulate the make-up of e-cigarettes. So, I think it's honest to say that Public Health England have recognised that there is less risk from e-cigarettes than smoking. That is not the same as saying there is no risk. For different people, there will be different methods that help them to quit smoking, and that is what I would like to see. We will, of course, listen to the developing evidence base about all products within that that help people to give up smoking.

We now turn to spokespeople's questions, and the first this afternoon is from Angela Burns. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. Will you please outline what procedures are in place for hospital patients to administer their own routine medications? 

Are you talking about routine medication within a hospital setting? 

No. 

I'm not sure I understand the question, because for hospital patients and medication, there is medication that they receive when actually in a hospital, and if they have a secondary-care-led medication need, how they actually administer that themselves. It will depend, of course, on the condition and the medication. 

Let me clarify it slightly for you, Cabinet Secretary, as you seem to be struggling slightly there. I notice, for example, that the Member for Cynon Valley recently tabled some written questions seeking information around the procedures in place surrounding hospital patients self-administering their medication. It appeared that she received some fairly stock answers to it.

Now, let's have a look at the example of people with Parkinson's. They may enter hospital for reasons that may or may not be related to Parkinson's, and find that the hospital's drug round does not coincide with their own medication regime. However, as you will know, in Parkinson's, a minor change in medication timing can have major negative effects on symptom management and general recovery. The uneven release of dopamine can result in a person suddenly—in Parkinson's—not being able to move, get out of bed, or walk down a corridor, and it can also lead to serious complications such as pneumonia and bowel obstruction. Parkinson's UK have launched a campaign entitled Get It On Time to ensure that drugs such as levodopa, which are prescribed to treat Parkinson's, are administered at regular times of the day—a campaign that's been successfully introduced in Canada. What advice would your department be able to give health boards about implementing such a scheme in Welsh hospitals, because this is proving to be a problem where a person's tried and tested drug regime does not fit in with the drug prescription regime of a hospital when they're in a hospital setting?

Well, look, this is an issue that I'm aware of, the Get It On Time campaign. It's not a condition-specific campaign for one only because, actually, there are a range of other conditions—epilepsy, for example. My younger brother has epilepsy and I know on some of his hospital stays in the English system the non-administration of that has actually led to him having a seizure that would have otherwise been controlled by his medication regime outside of a hospital setting. So, I do recognise the challenges that exist in a range of conditions about having a regular medication regime that continues and is not interrupted by a hospital stay, whether that is for the main condition that those medications are provided for or for an alternative. And there's something here about our improvement programme in pharmacy management and in medication management in any event, both about the administration of medicines in hospitals, but also about not having an unnecessary gap when somebody is actually discharged from hospital as well, so they promptly have any medication that they then require to go back into their own homes. So, I recognise the campaign. There's work being led by the chief pharmacist with health boards and chief pharmacists in each of the health boards because I do recognise the challenge that does exist.

Well, I'm pleased to hear you say that, and, of course, the parliamentary review really recommended—well, had two key thrusts. The first was that we want the general public to begin to take more responsibility for their own health and to manage themselves in a more appropriate way, and the second thrust was that we want people to go into hospital less often, and when they're there to get out of there far more quickly, and we do have situations where people with conditions such as Parkinson's may end up staying in hospital through no fault of their own but because those regimes don't tie together.

I've witnessed first hand from my time in hospital that, actually, hospital staff can get really bowed under with all sorts of other pressures and, so, the drugs trolley doesn't quite make it down the corridor and so on and so forth. So, I really would like to ask you again to have a good look at this because we can't say on the one hand, 'Take more responsibility'—. Some people have had conditions such as Parkinson's—and, as you say, it's not the only one—for years and years and years, and they know what they need and they know when they need it. I appreciate that if you're in hospital for something entirely different there may be contraindications and so on—one always has to be really careful—but I think we can rely on the general public when they have something like this, when they will know only too well what suits them, because of course, as you will know, every individual with conditions such as Parkinson's will have a different reaction to it, will have a different set of meds, and will certainly have a different timescale. So, will you please undertake to look at this really clearly, so that we can say to people, 'We are asking you to take responsibility, we do trust you'? Above all, it's to keep them better in hospital, so that, hopefully, they can get out better from whatever reason they've gone in there.

I recognise entirely the point about people taking more responsibility for their own healthcare, but I actually think that the bigger gain to be made on that is how people take their medication in the community and how we enable that to happen. Within a hospital setting, it really is about how the health service make sure that is enabled properly. Some people don't have their own medication, it's often taken away at the point of entry. You need to make sure that their medication is provided on a regular basis so it can be—

But it's not, and that's my point.

—so it can be administered, and that is a challenge for us. There's also something about how we shift some of the work.

So, part of our challenge in the hospital pharmacy service is actually that some of that work need not necessarily take place there, and that'll provide them with a greater length of time to do what they really do need to do, and only they can do for hospital-based patients. So, the link between the hospital pharmacy service and community pharmacy really does matter and I think there's more gain to be made from community pharmacies taking on additional duties in the future to make it easier for people to get out and to support people in administering successfully their own medication regimes, as well as providing more time for their hospital-based colleagues to do their job properly, in addition with other staff in a hospital system. 

Thank you. UKIP spokesperson, Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Minister, we have discussed previously the case of my constituent, Paul Davies, the Paralympian who was facing the real prospect of missing Tokyo 2020 due to a lack of social care. Minister, with your help, I'm pleased to say that Paul Davies now has the support he needs in order to train for the Tokyo Paralympics. So, Minister, will you join me in wishing Paul Davies every success in his endeavours and in hoping that he can bring back a gold medal for Wales?

Absolutely. And I think everybody here would join you, Caroline, in wishing Paul the very, very best. In some ways, I can say he is a local boy, a local man, in my neck of the woods, slightly out of my constituency. But we're delighted that the local authority and the local health board have come together, very much, I have to say, based on the idea that we say regularly here within the Assembly—that the Cabinet Secretary and I say—that it should be focused on the outcomes of the individual, not simply on care, but on independent living. And that independent living includes the ability to pursue activities and hobbies and interests—it's more than simply care. But I'm delighted that with the highlighting of the issue, Caroline, that you and others brought to it—I think you overstate my role in this entirely, I have to say, but I'm delighted that, on the ground, locally, they've managed to find a solution that will enable him to go forward and compete. I understand from my officials that they've been able to appoint two personal assistants now, which will mean that he can pursue, and, we all hope, fulfil, his dreams and ambitions.

Yes. Thank you, Minister. We were able to get a very satisfactory outcome in Paul's case. But what about those who don't have their Assembly Member fighting their corner? Minister, what is the Welsh Government doing to ensure that every single disabled person in Wales is able to pursue their goals, their dreams, unhindered by their disability?

Entirely. And, Caroline, if I can reiterate my earlier comments, which would be that the statutory framework in Wales is very different from across the border in England; it is very much—with the support of Members here, who took the legislation through—based on a person-centred approach, where that person should co-determine their package of support for independent living. It's not to be done to them, but it's to be done with them. It should be based on the outcomes for that individual to improve their quality of life and their ability—as we all take for granted—to do what we want and to socialise and to engage in wider society. There is also, of course, the statutory right to advocacy, either informal advocacy, or, failing that, a more formal type of advocacy, and so on and so forth. I think the challenge that local authorities and health boards and others face is the financial constraints they operate in. But that shouldn't stop them focusing on that approach of working with the individual, with their needs, to determine how they can best support independent living and a quality of life that we all take for granted, and so should they.

Thank you once again for that answer, Minister. Our future Paralympians are relying upon their carers—paid and unpaid—to support them while they concentrate upon winning the medals. But who supports the carers? Minister, sadly, we know that two thirds of unpaid carers have not been offered or requested a needs assessment, and three quarters of those same carers say they do not get any support from their GP. So, what is the Government doing to ensure that carers' needs are assessed? Thank you.

Thank you for that question. Colleagues may be interested to know that we convened the first formal meeting of the ministerial advisory group on carers today. I met them in the centre of Cardiff. All the relevant stakeholders, from a wide range of organisations, are there. And, in a similar way to the work that's been taken forward by our colleague here, David Melding, on the ministerial action group for looked-after children, which has provided such good results and work streams that have led to positive outcomes, we are very hopeful that the ministerial advisory group on carers will do the same. It is supported as well by an ancillary group, which is actually to represent the wider voice of carers. We can't fit everybody around that top table, but we have statutory providers, we have carers' organisations, older people's organisations, younger people's organisations. They can't all fit around the table—it's a very focused, targeted group—but, outside of that, there's an ancillary group that also gives those people who want to contribute their voices as carers into it as well—. And that will focus on issues such as how we support them—how we support carers with life beyond caring, so they're not defined entirely as carers and nothing else, because many carers want to work, to engage wider in society and so on. It is based on the identification of carers and the work we're doing with GP surgeries, with pharmacies, in schools with the schools toolkit, and it is also focused on the additional support, including flexible respite support, that we can give for carers going forward. This is a journey that we're on, not an end product, because we have to keep on improving the outcomes. But the £8.1 billion value of carers—the massive army of carers that are out there—it's not just their monetary value but it's also measured in compassion and the love that they provide, and I hope this ministerial advisory group will give me the direction of travel we need in Government and here in this Assembly to improve the lives of carers. 

Thank you. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Now, Cabinet Secretary, I met this morning with a group concerned with Barrett's oesophagus, which is a condition that, left untreated, can lead to cancer. But it's possible to use a treatment called radio frequency ablation to treat this, before it leads to cancer. In fact, it is clinically proven and its cost benefits are very, very clear. But Wales doesn't have this service, so patients have to go to England. Now, costs for providing treatment in England, paid for by the Welsh NHS, have increased dramatically in the past year—increased by something like 150 per cent. So, the lack of access to this technology in Wales is costing the NHS here more and more. Can you tell me what the barrier is to preventing that service being provided in Wales? And can you report back to me and the Assembly on work being done to introduce RFA treatment in Wales as quickly as possible? 

Yes, I'm happy to respond on this. I've actually had direct correspondence from one of my constituents on this matter, as indeed from a wider interest group, and, coincidentally, this Saturday, in Margam, I had the pleasure of meeting people from the Bangladeshi Gastroenterology Association. I also met the president of the British Gastroenterology Association, who said he was imminently due to write to me on this very issue. Because I do recognise that there is a NICE recommended treatment available that we currently commission over our border, in particular in south Wales. We do now think that we could and should be able to provide the service here in Wales. Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board are leading work on that to provide that service. I'll be happy to provide an update to Members in the future on where that is to be clearer about the timescales for doing so, but I do expect us to make that treatment properly available, as the evidence suggests, and to make it available here in Wales, as opposed to continuing to have to commission a service across our border. 

Yes, that's positive. I look forward to that update.

Turning to another issue linked to the slow pace of the introduction of new technologies, the use of multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, you will be aware—very aware—that the clinical consensus is that this is a game changer, a real game changer, in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. But only two health boards in Wales are providing mpMRI to a high enough standard to avoid the need for biopsy. The result is that many men have chosen—have been forced, in effect—to pay upwards of £900 for private mpMRI scans.

Now, when asked about this before, you said that you were waiting for updated guidelines from NICE, but they won't be published until April next year, and at the same time England and Scotland have introduced this generally. Now, why is it in cases where I suspect you know really that the conclusions of NICE will be to propose pressing forward with this, and where other NHS services in the UK are using new technologies—why is it that you're content for Welsh patients to wait until the judgment and then wait for the implementation period?  

Well, I don't share his summary of the position. In particular, the very clear advice I've had is that this service is not available consistently in England. I'm not aware of the position in Scotland, but this is not available in every part of the NHS in England, and we don't yet have a clinical consensus. There are a number of advocates who do say that it is a game changer; that is not yet the clinical consensus view. That can either come from NICE guidance or it could come from the Welsh urology board, who are now examining the issue. If the Welsh urology board give us advice, that would then draw on the basis for a clinical consensus and we could have a service that is then planned and delivered across the country, as opposed to the current pathfinders in two of the health boards, which, of course, are adding to our evidence base. So, I want to see the issue resolved so we do understand if there is clinical consensus. Then, as I've said on a regular number of occasions, if the evidence and the advice changes, I would expect our healthcare system to act on the very best available evidence and advice to us.

All the evidence I've seen suggests that we already know what we need to know—that this is a potentially life-saving procedure. 

Now, the recent parliamentary review emphasised the role that new technologies can play in providing treatment closer to home, with the emphasis on preventative health through earlier diagnosis. Both of those examples that I've given today are cases where our NHS, I believe, should be far more proactive in adopting new technology to achieve these ends. Waiting for NICE, which has a lengthy workload and can't possibly remain up to date with everything, is going to become a bigger problem over time. So, will you look, therefore, at reassessing the approach your Government is taking to the earliest possible introduction of technology to ensure that treatment in Wales can remain or be at the cutting edge, and that patients in Wales get the very best treatment possible?

We've actually got Health Technology Wales to do just that, Deputy Presiding Officer, in the same way we have the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group to allow us to have faster access to, actually, properly appraising new medicines as well. So, we do have a process that is available to us on new technology as opposed to new medicine. And, with respect, the clinical consensus that we could get on the mpMRI could be delivered in the here and now by the Welsh urology board if they provided that advice to us. If they provided that clinical consensus, we'd have a different place to act.

It's fine for politicians to be persuaded about what they think is right, but, actually, I think to run this significant public service we do need to have proper clinical consensus on the appropriate way forward. We have means to do that already, but I'm always interested if we can improve the way in which we make those choices, because part of my regular frustration—and it is borne out by the parliamentary review and the plan we have—is that changing the way our healthcare system delivers and improves is far too slow. So, that is why the twin aims are to have pace and scale in the change and transformation that we all recognise needs to take place.

Thank you for the question. Health services in Montgomeryshire are provided by a dedicated team of staff who are committed to providing high-quality care to and for their local population as close to home as possible.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I agree that they are dedicated staff working within Montgomeryshire. Major changes in neighbouring health boards in Shropshire and in Hywel Dda Local Health Board will all result in some services moving further away from the people of Montgomeryshire. I know you visited Welshpool recently, and I know that, as I understand it, you're due to visit Llanidloes soon. Can I ask what steps you're taking to address this by providing community-based health services to serve the people of my constituency?

Yes, I think that Powys Teaching Local Health Board have been particularly forward looking, not just in their partnership with the council, but the way in which they are looking to develop facilities to provide as much care within the county as possible, as well as, of course, commissioning care from other providers within Wales and on the English side of the border.

I recognise that the Future Fit consultation is a matter of some concern, both here and indeed in England, and so I'd encourage residents of Montgomeryshire, and indeed Brecon and Radnorshire, to get involved in the consultation that is taking place. Powys health board have a range of public events to try and promote the consultation and encourage people to take part. I actually think that Powys have been a good partner with other health boards in making clear that the needs of Powys patients are understood, and they will need to consider and reconsider where the evidence is about the best place for Powys residents to receive healthcare—whether that is local healthcare or indeed hospital-based care. But I really do think that Powys have a good story to tell about providing a wide range of community services, wanting to provide as much care within the community as possible, and, in many respects, the rest of Wales needs to look at Powys and understand how it could be more like Powys in delivering local healthcare.

Thank you for the question. I feel strongly that transgender people should be able to have their healthcare needs met as close to home as possible. I remain committed to improving transgender care in Wales, both through primary and secondary care. In addition to the improvements that I outlined in my written statement recently, I can confirm that the senior clinician for the Wales gender identity team is now in post.

It is entirely unacceptable that there have been delays of 12 months before introducing this new service, and this creates problems in terms of inconsistency in information provided to people who require this service, with some being told that there is no service available, whilst, in reality, the clinic in London continues to be available to people from Wales until the new service is up and running. Can you explain why there has been this delay, and will you ensure that accurate information is shared with people who ask for gender identity services in this transitional period?

Yes. This is a real issue of concern to people across Wales, and I am deeply frustrated at the time that it has taken us to date. I would want to see a much swifter rate of progress for the future. Some of that has been about recruiting the right staff in the right place, but frankly, the frustrations, I feel, don't compare to people who have had their healthcare interrupted. That is the point of this. I am significantly unhappy that some people have had their current ways of accessing healthcare within Wales interrupted. There is absolutely no reason for any of the announcements that I have made to be used as a reason to make health services more difficult to access. The improvements that I expect in primary care are frankly no more than any of us expect for ourselves—to have normal primary healthcare needs provided within our local community.

We are reaching a point where we have an answer to provide that local healthcare need on a consistent basis. Nobody should stop treating patients at this point in time in the way they currently access care, and, indeed, the specialist care, we expect more of that to be delivered in Wales in the future, and the senior clinician in the Wales gender team should be able to help make progress on that already. So, I'm unhappy with our lack of progress. I continue to meet people from the transgender community and have correspondence from them and, indeed, our healthcare service will continue to meet with stakeholders and the most important people of course—transgender people themselves.

Cabinet Secretary, the development of the gender identity service for Wales will make it much easier for transgender people to access services and support locally, without the need to travel further afield. Can you say a little bit more about your commitment to setting up a network of GPs with a particular specialism in gender identity to ensure local access? You've touched on this with Siân Gwenllian. It's clearly an important area. Can you say a little bit more about how you would see that operating in practice?

Yes. We've already agreed funding for somebody to be hosted by Cardiff and Vale health board to respond to the immediate prescribing needs, because that's often the real crunch point, where some GPs don't feel confident in prescribing after a hospital-led service has actually started a course of treatment. We should eventually reach a point where we have a wider network, but the first point will be to ensure that an employed GP, directly employed by the health board, is available to fill the gap that we recognise that currently exists as we want to develop that wider service, because, as I say, this is a regular healthcare need that we should be able to meet within local healthcare, and it is not a point of credit to our service that we have not been able to do so to date.

The Welsh Government is working in partnership with the Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust, health boards and charities to proactively promote and install public-access defibrillators in buildings across Wales.

There have been a number of developments in my constituency recently whereby defibrillators have been introduced, which have been welcomed in communities across the isle, of course, because they provide safeguards in cases of cardiac ill health, and there are efforts, of course, to introduce further such machines. The latest is an application for one to be provided as part of the introduction of the new park run in Anglesey for young people, in the hope of ensuring the best safety facilities possible for runners. It’s very often charities that contribute towards funding these defibrillators, but can you as a Government seek new ways of providing financial assistance as this is something that is driven by communities and deserves Government support? 

Thank you for the question. Funnily enough, I was recently in a place within my own constituency where somebody who had been motivated by their own experience of the health service had gone out and raised money to provide defibrillators—one in the new Eastern High school recently opened in Trowbridge, and the other, recently, in Llanrumney's Phoenix Boxing Club. And so, there are a range of people who are deeply committed to doing this, and equally, within the charitable sector, there's a wide range of charities that are committed to making more defibrillators available and making sure that they're publicly available, and it's the partnership with WAST that helps to make sure those public-access defibrillators are available and for use.

So, the challenge always is about how many, and where and when, and also where the role of Government is in terms of making those available. The UK Government recently announced a fund of money. We haven't seen a consequential for that, but we need to think again about how we make sure that we do continue to see more defibrillators used and, indeed, how that links to the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest plan to make sure that this relatively easy-to-use life-saving equipment is not just available but is actually used to help save people's lives.

Cabinet Secretary, can I also welcome your answer and the work that's been done by so many communities who have actually taken up this issue and established defibrillators in those communities, who have raised the funds, who have supported the training, and so on, for them to operate? In my constituency, in just one area in Tonyrefail, we have 20 defibrillators that have now been set up by communities. They're on lamp posts, they're in shops, there's one outside a curry house, and I'm assured that's because it needed to have the electricity connection there. But it shows what communities can do, and it shows the strength of some of our communities.

I suppose the issue that would be a little bit of a concern is, of course, that that's fine where you've got the community taking that on board, but what we wouldn't want to see is gaps in and around the country where some have defibrillators and some shouldn't. Maybe what we should be doing is actually trying to get a broader picture of what the state is with regard to the spread of defibrillators and look at ways in which we can encourage the spread of further defibrillators in those areas that haven't yet managed to achieve that.

Yes, and I recognise the point that he makes about Tonyrefail with a group of community fundraisers, and the work in particular of the two Welsh-based charities, being Cariad and Welsh Hearts, but also the British Heart Foundation too are obviously interested in seeing more publicly accessible defibrillators made available.

And that's why the partnership with WAST matters, to understand where they are, so they're actually available when someone needs one, but also understand if there are parts of Wales where there is a gap in provision and, equally, about how public buildings, so that we can invest from the public purse in making sure that there are defibrillators available too.

I should make a point here because, in recent discussions around defibrillators, I've been pretty appalled at the number of defibrillators that are vandalised and taken away. And there is something about supporting the work of people who not just raise funds to have them, and then to see them maintained as well, as indeed I think Cariad and Welsh Hearts do, but actually to make clear that it really is wholly unacceptable for life-saving equipment to be removed and vandalised, as sadly happens far too often.

Our priority for children’s services in Wales is to help families stay together where possible, avoiding the need for care. So, programmes such as Flying Start and family support services provide those families with early help, emotional and practical support so that all children in Wales can enjoy the same chances in life.

Can I thank the Minister for his response? I would like to stress the importance of children's social services and that the cost and need of children's services has increased substantially over the last 40 years, and certainly over the last 20 years. Also, social services is not, as quite often is thought of in here, shorthand for elderly social care.

What support does the Welsh Government provide to local authorities' children's social services across Wales?

I'm glad to report, Mike, that our local authority funding towards children's and families' services spend has increased, in fact, over the five-year period from 2012-13 to 2016-17 by 24 per cent. It's gone up from £467 million to £577 million, but, of course, that is alongside the investment that we are putting into things like Flying Start, and other aspects of funding as well.

And I thank you, Mike, for the recent visit that we made together to St Teilo's community Cwtch as well. It was great to see a community coming together in an area of some disadvantage as well, but putting together an array of provision for families and for children that ticked a lot of boxes in one go. And, of course, the other aspect in terms of Swansea is their significant progress, with support of Welsh Government, but actually on their own initiative, around the number of looked-after children that has decreased now, from 585 to 480 over the last four years. They've had an improvement programme in place, and it's really showing dividends, and we might be able to learn lesson from what Swansea is doing with reducing safely the number of children coming into care by actually thinking cleverly and creatively on the ground. If one local authority can do it, then many others could be able to do it as well.

Question 8 [OAQ52423] has been withdrawn. Question 9, Mick Antoniw.

Thank you for the question. The Welsh Government recognises the importance of sleep medicine, and our approach is set out in the respiratory health delivery plan for Wales. That plan was updated and republished in January this year. It includes a national work stream for improving sleep medicine.

Thank you for the answer, and I very much welcome the work that has been done on something that has not been, perhaps, recognised as being as important as it is. I know there have been previous questions, I think from Llyr Gruffydd and others, around this particular subject. I've had a number of representations to me, because although sleep apnoea and narcolepsy are particularly recognised, those represent only two out of 70 of the various sleep disorders that can have very significant effects on people's ability to work but also to live ordinary lives. One of the representations I've had is that Wales is the only country without a designated facility for the diagnosis and management of complex sleep disorders and that the level of service is a bit of a postcode lottery around Wales in terms of the way in which the services operate. I wonder if that's something that the Cabinet Secretary could look at in more detail and address, and I know that he will also have had particular medical representations on this issue as well.

Indeed, I've received correspondence on this issue directly, and it is part of what the respiratory health improvement group are looking at, because, as you point out, sleeping disorders do exist, and the most common ones we talk about are narcolepsy and sleep apnoea. There are others, and they do have a real impact on people's ability to live their everyday lives. So, we're looking at more of the services that are, for example, currently delivered in the centre at Nevill Hall in Aneurin Bevan, and we'll see about the spread of that service and access to that service from other parts of Wales, and to understand what more we need to do to reduce some of the variations that I recognise exist too. So, that is absolutely part of the work programme that is within the respiratory health group, and so I do expect, over the next year, to be able to describe for you not just what is being planned, but what is being done about that too.FootnoteLink

Thank you for the question. My officials continue to work closely with the health board to provide the necessary support and challenge as they work towards ensuring their services meet the needs of their local population. 

Thank you for that answer. Now, it was in September 2016 that ABMU health board was put under Welsh Government targeted intervention. The reason for this was due to significant concerns that existed at that time around unscheduled care, cancer and planned care, amongst others, as you well know. Despite nearly two years of Welsh Government focus, it is clear that many services have not just failed to improve, but have actually gone backwards: accident and emergency performance, care for certain cancer patients, and planned care performance against the 26-week target have all slipped backwards. Now, this clearly raises questions in terms of what support the Welsh Government is providing ABMU health board, and I believe we need that scrutiny. Will you commit, therefore, to bringing forward a Government statement here in the Chamber so that we can discuss in more depth the support that is being provided and the challenges that are being faced?

Well, I won't commit to providing a statement; what I will commit to is that I'm happy to make sure that Members are informed not just of the support available, but of the progress, or otherwise, of ABM health board, because you're right that there have been challenges around unscheduled care and cancer performance in particular. I'm pleased there's been an improvement trajectory within this year in terms of unscheduled care, with more to go to have a sustained position on cancer care as well. So, I'm more than happy to come back on the areas of improvement, but also, from the first question asked today, to note that there has been an improvement in their financial position. I expect that to recover, and I certainly expect on unscheduled care, as well, that we'll be in a position to announce an improvement target from the one they started this year with and, indeed, improved performance. But there is a range of areas where ABM have a significant and positive story to tell as well, just as in every other part of the health service.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

There have been no topical questions accepted this afternoon.

Therefore, we move to item 4, which is the 90-second statement. Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 came into effect on 1 July 1948. I would like to celebrate the seventieth anniversary of this groundbreaking legislation. The 1947 Town and Country Planning Act is regarded as the statutory foundation of physical planning in post-war Britain. The Act established the planning provision required for land development. Ownership alone no longer conferred the right to develop the land. To control this, the Act reorganised the planning system from 1,400 planning authorities to 145, formed from county and borough councils, and required them all to prepare a comprehensive development plan. They were also given powers to control outdoor advertising, and to preserve woodland or buildings of architectural or historic interest, the latter the beginning of the modern listed building system that we know today. Whilst the postbag of all Members of the Assembly and Parliament, and of councillors, is full of objections and support for planning applications, it is the 1947 Act that was the start of providing planning as we currently know it—another piece of important progressive legislation by the 1945-51 Labour Government.

The next item on our agenda this afternoon is the motion to suspend Standing Orders, and I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion.

Formally.

Diolch. Simon Thomas.

Formally.

No, no. You need to—. Did you want to speak?

I don't want to speak, no.

Okay, fine. Sorry; it's just written down. So, the proposal is to suspend the Standing Orders. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we will have a vote on this. The vote must take place now, unless three Members—[Interruption.] Ring the bell? Three Members? Three Members show me they want the bell ringing. Thank you. Ring the bell, please.

We are going to move to a vote. The vote is to suspend the Standing Orders. Therefore, I will call for a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 35, four abstentions, nine against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

Therefore, we now move to item 5, which is a debate on no named day motion 6753: the Secretary of State for Wales. I call on Simon Thomas to move the motion.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I, first of all, thank the Assembly for allowing us to debate this no named day motion now? I think, in light of the events over the last week and the decision making of the Westminster Government, it is appropriate that we debate this motion. I understand not everyone will support the content of the motion, and there are amendments before us, but I think it is vital that we allow ourselves to debate the motion of no confidence in the Secretary of State.

When I tabled the motion, of course, I didn't think we'd be having two no confidence motions on the same day as regards the Conservative Party, but it seems that that is what has transpired. But we're here to judge one man's responsibility, and one man's responsibility to deliver on manifesto commitments, and that's what I want to judge the Secretary of State on—a commitment in 2015 to do two major pieces of infrastructure investment in Wales, worth over £2 billion of investment: to electrify the railway between Swansea and Cardiff and to support the tidal lagoon. More than that, there was a commitment in the manifesto that the Secretary of State for Wales stood on and was elected on to finish the job on electrification and to support the tidal lagoon.

Since that 2015 manifesto, yes, circumstances have changed, many of them created by the Conservative Government itself, of course, in calling the referendum on leaving the European Union, but neither of those major investments have been made, calling into question not only the good words of the Secretary of State himself but, I think, politics more widely—all of us who stand for election on manifestos. I've seen some of the response this week from my constituents around this, who now feel that they are not being listened to and that manifesto commitments and promises can be broken willy-nilly, not by oppositions, not by small parties, not by others, but by parties who have been in Government for several years.

That failure to deliver really has left us in a very invidious position in this Assembly, because we wanted these projects to deliver for us, the Welsh Government wanted to work with these projects, the Welsh Government was prepared to co-invest in these projects, and the Welsh Government had plans in place to benefit Wales as a whole when these projects went ahead, both in terms of rail electrification and the tidal lagoon. As a result of a decision made by the Westminster Government for which, yes, to a certain extent, in terms of this debate today, the Secretary of State for Wales is the figurehead—he may not have personally taken some of these decisions, in the sense that I understand it was actually the Prime Minister who decided to cancel rail electrification to Swansea—but he is our most direct voice in Westminster. He is supposedly Wales's voice in the Cabinet, the advocate for Wales in the Cabinet, and the person for whom this should be a matter of personal commitment and personal responsibility to deliver.

If there are two commitments in your manifesto for election for which you are then the Cabinet Secretary responsible, and you don't deliver on them, then do you carry on? Do you stand down? Do you say, 'I'm sorry, I failed to get it through'? Do you resign as a sign that you are unhappy with your own Government's performance? We have had resignations this week from members of the Government, for lesser reasons than this, actually—on principle to vote against a planning decision on Heathrow, not even as far advanced as rail electrification and the tidal lagoon. The fact that the Secretary of State has not seen fit to act in the spirit of what Wales wanted, and show his dissatisfaction with the decision making of his own Government—which, to be fair, some Members opposite have done over the last day or so—I think means that we should move a motion of no confidence in him here today.

Now, of course we are not responsible for the Secretary of State for Wales, he is not answerable to us, and he doesn't even come to the Assembly anymore to give his annual speech. [Interruption.] Just in a second, of course. We rightly got rid of that rather anachronistic approach, but he is our single voice in Westminster, and we are the voice of the people of Wales, so it is completely appropriate politically—maybe not constitutionally, but politically I think it's completely appropriate—that we debate the motion and pass it here today.

I was going to say that he also refuses to come to committees to give evidence.

He does indeed, and most recently to the committee on which Mike Hedges serves with myself, the Finance Committee.

I am not going to list the failures of one individual here. There are many, and I could list—[Interruption.] I haven't got the time in the next hour. I'm concentrating on the two big commitments that he failed to deliver, which were in the manifesto and which he personally should take responsibility for. The others, which may come out in emerging debate, are things, I think, for a debate. They don't bring us to a situation where we would want to pass a motion or make a motion of no confidence in the Secretary of State, but these two decisions do.

Let's just look in particular at the Swansea bay tidal lagoon decision, the most recent one. In rejecting this, we haven't just rejected one lagoon project. What's been rejected is the entire proposition of tidal range technology. It's been rejected on the basis of their own commissioned independent report by a previous energy Minister on the potential for tidal range energy, which wasn't just about the Swansea lagoon—though it came to a particular conclusion on the Swansea lagoon—but was in fact a report on the whole tidal range energy around the British isles. In the words of the chief executive of Tidal Lagoon Power, the decision to ditch the lagoon is a

'vote of no interest in Wales, no confidence in British manufacturing, and no care for the planet'.

I think, given that, no confidence in the Secretary of State is the least response that this Assembly can make. Our faces were actually rubbed into the dirt by the way this announcement was made, and the wounds were rubbed in with salt. On the day that the tidal lagoon was scrapped, a £14 billion extra runway at Heathrow was approved, and on the day the tidal lagoon was scrapped, the Secretary of State saw fit to use his own social media outlet, the Twitter account of the Wales Office, to tweet a series of infantile memes regarding the pathetic job creation of the tidal lagoon, and how it wouldn't do this and it wouldn't do that, on the basis of sums and figures that most people think don't add up. They were in complete contradiction; for example, a tweet from the Secretary of State says it would only have created 28 long-term jobs, and there's a commitment in the 2015 manifesto that says:

'This project will create thousands of jobs and attract millions of pounds worth of investment into Wales.'

[Interruption.]—I'll leave that to one side. Three years apart—which is the lie? Which is the lie—the tweet yesterday from the Secretary of State or the commitment in a manifesto signed up to by not just one individual, but the whole of the Conservative Party?

Charles Hendry has picked up on this and made a very important point in his own response to this decision. He said:

'just as gas plants and wind farms only create a small number of long-term jobs. The issue here was can we start a new global industry from the UK? Swansea would just be the start.'

Swansea would just be the start. What the Secretary for State has robbed us of is not one project, but the start of a whole new technology, the start of a new beginning for Swansea and for Wales, the start of a new export market, the start of a new manufacturing base, the start of new hope for Tata Steel, the start of new hope for skills and training in south Wales. That's what he's robbed us of, and that's why we should not give any indication to him that we have any confidence in his decision making going forward.

The lagoon has huge public support—76 per cent of the British public support wave and tidal energy, compared, as it happens, to only 38 per cent who support nuclear energy. Yet nuclear doesn't only just get the subsidy contract for difference—the lagoon was asking for the same as Hinkley, of course—but it also gets co-investment from the UK Government, something that the Welsh Government, to be fair, had offered the lagoon, and was rejected by the UK Government. And, of course, tidal lagoons do have a very different and longer operational life and cost less in the long term, as Hendry concluded in his independent report. Put in this context, the cost of a pathfinder project, such as Swansea bay, financed thought the contract for difference approach, which is 30p a year on every bill, is expected to average 30p per household, as I just said. This seems to me to be an extremely modest amount to pay for a new technology that delivers those benefits and which has a clear potential to start a significant new industry. Moving ahead with a pathfinder lagoon is, I believe, a 'no regrets' policy.

If we just accept this decision from Westminster, and from the Secretary for State in particular, if we don't make the Secretary for State regret his decision, then this 'no regrets' policy will become disastrous decision making. We must assert our rights here to send a clear message to Westminster. They sent us a very clear message on Tuesday. They said, 'Go away, forget about investment, forget about your future, forget about this new start. Go away and be quiet.' We must not be quiet in the face of such strong messages from Westminster and we must send back an equally strong message to the Secretary for State, because sometimes you do have to make politics personal, and sometimes you have to realise that those who are trying to be a bridge to realise Welsh ambitions have actually slammed the door on those Welsh ambitions. Only by stating that we have no confidence in him can we reject his mission of supplication and crumbs from the UK table and assert our democratic right to our own resources and our own decisions. 

Thank you. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move formally amendment 1.

Formally.

Diolch. I call on Paul Davies to move amendment 2 tabled in his name. Paul Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I move the amendment tabled in my name.

I'm disappointed that this motion has been tabled today by Plaid Cymru, and I'm sad that they are playing party politics with this particular issue. It won't surprise Members that I'll be focusing my contribution on some of the positive contributions that the Secretary of State for Wales has made for Wales. Of course, that's not to say that Members on this side of the Chamber aren't extremely disappointed with the recent announcement about the tidal lagoon, and my colleagues have made it crystal clear that we share the disappointment and the frustration echoed by other Members in this Chamber. Indeed, as a Member who represents an area where tidal energy developments are making significant progress, I recognise the potential value of the tidal lagoon. However, I appreciate that Government Ministers have a duty to ensure that the figures stack up and deliver value for money for the taxpayer, and it's clear that they felt unable to do that with this project. It's my view that we now need to look at a revised model that makes the project more cost-effective and more attractive to private sector investment. 

However, today's debate isn't tabled to discuss that or the implications of the tidal lagoon for Wales, but rather to discuss the post of the Secretary of State for Wales. Therefore, it's only appropriate that we take the opportunity to be a little bit more objective, and at the very least recognise some of the positive outcomes delivered by the current Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I will in a moment. For example—and I will give you some examples—we know that the Secretary of State played a key role in delivering the fiscal framework with the Welsh Government, a framework that has been universally welcomed in this Chamber. The fiscal framework provides a fair, long-term funding arrangement for Wales, taking account of the new tax powers that have been devolved this year, and very much paves the way for the devolution of Welsh rates of income tax in 2019. 

The Secretary of State has also made it clear that Wales will see an end to tolls on the Severn crossing at the end of the year, and that's also a very welcome development. This announcement will benefit tens of millions of drivers each year, reduce the cost of doing business between Wales and England, and deliver a £100 million boost to the Welsh economy. The removal of that financial barrier sends a clear statement that Wales is open for business and is a symbolic statement that the UK Government and the current Secretary of State are breaking down barriers and supporting the Welsh economy, not putting up barriers. I give way to the Member for Anglesey.

Thank you for giving way. You talk about what the post of Secretary of State for Wales is. It's quite clear, is it not, that Alun Cairns is Westminster's man in Wales, not Wales's man in Westminster? It is absolutely clear, is it not, that Alun Cairns is reinventing the role of Welsh Secretary as governor-general for Wales? I oppose that in principle, I oppose that as a Welshman, and when it's clear that that governor-general is working against Wales's interest, isn't it incumbent on all of us to vote no confidence in him?

It's absolute rubbish. I've just given you a list of what this Secretary of State for Wales has actually delivered for Wales.

Our amendment also highlights the key work being done on the city and regional growth deals across Wales and the substantial investment that's been received in different parts of Wales. Growth deals for the Cardiff and Swansea regions have been agreed, with plans being drawn up in north Wales—all supported by significant financial backing from the UK Government. The deals provide local people with the opportunities to tackle the challenges to economic growth in the area through developing new, high-value businesses and supporting existing businesses to innovate and develop new products and services, and the Assembly should support those deals and work with local authorities to maximise their potential. For example, I understand that the Swansea bay city region deal will deliver a permanent uplift in its GVA and will generate around 10,000 new jobs over the next 15 years.

The Secretary of State has also worked hard in relation to the development and construction of a new nuclear power station at Wylfa Newydd, which will create thousands of jobs in north Wales during construction and deliver the biggest investment in north Wales for a generation. Indeed, Horizon anticipate it will create up to 9,000 jobs at the peak of construction, and with two reactors on site, the plant will also support close to 1,000 jobs during operation. Therefore, it's crucial to recognise that, far from the very bleak picture painted by some in this Chamber, there has been some very good outcomes for Wales delivered by the current Secretary of State for Wales. 

Of course, on this side of the Chamber, we believe that the post and office of the Secretary of State for Wales is vital in representing Wales's interests at a UK Government level. Indeed, as the UK moves closer to leaving the European Union, it's even more important that Wales's voice is heard around the Cabinet table and that the interests of the people of Wales are represented at all Cabinet meetings. 

Therefore, in closing, Deputy Presiding Officer, there are some very welcome outcomes that have been secured by the current Secretary of State for Wales and it's important that Members are objective when considering policy announcements. Therefore, I encourage the Members to support our amendments, see past party politics, and have a real debate about the delivery of infrastructure projects across Wales.

I'm pleased to take part in this important debate. Yesterday, I mentioned in the statement on the tidal lagoon the unbridled fury and anger in Swansea, and a day later that unbridled fury remains unbridled, I have to say, and that's the reason for this debate this afternoon.

Cohorts of engineering graduates in Swansea, dozens of local businesses and small contractors have been hanging on for years for a positive decision on quality high-paid jobs, thousands of them, as in the Conservative manifesto. There were high hopes for this one big innovative enterprise, and there is no way we can belittle the sense of devastation that Swansea and the community I live in feel this week—absolute betrayal and devastation. They are expecting a forceful reply from the National Assembly for Wales. Granted, our hands are largely tied constitutionally. This is the extent of our forceful reply to what has been a terrible, devastating piece of news. Hundreds of people have been in contact with all of us, not just me. There is fury out there—fury, absolute fury—and it's not in any way politically game playing anything at all.

Somebody has to be held to account for this. The Secretary of State for Wales is meant to be fighting our corner. There is precious little evidence of that fight over the months, I'm afraid—precious little. We know the figures. The same strike prices at Hinkley Point. Yes, there would be 30p in addition to electricity bills as a result of the tidal lagoon coming on—30p as opposed to £15 additional due to nuclear industry. But more than that, it's the absolute laying waste of an innovative world-beating industry that would be in Wales—in Swansea to start off with, the pathfinder project, but also Cardiff, Newport, Colwyn Bay. That's the sense of devastation we feel at this devastating decision. [Interruption.] It is betrayal and it is huge, and it has gone, absolutely. That's why we're having this debate. Somebody has to be held responsible, and I have no confidence, we have no confidence in the Secretary of State for Wales. Darren—you can't hear, obviously.  

You mentioned flood protection and, quite rightly, some Members have been pointing out that I've been supporting projects in north Wales because of the flood protection benefits. The UK Government was quite clear that the dismissal of this particular proposal was a dismissal of this particular proposal. It was not, actually, an anti-tidal energy—full stop, no more tidal energy here in Wales—decision. And in fact, if you spoke to the developers of the potential projects in north Wales, which I have, they will tell you that their project is designed with different technology that can reduce the strike price significantly to make it much more affordable. So, I think that there are clearly different technologies out there and different schemes, which should, quite rightly, be weighed up on their own merits.   

Thank you for that—possibly one of the longest interventions on record. And if UK Government had spoken to the tidal lagoon company in Swansea, they would have found a similar argument, but there was no communication for two years, the chief executive and the chair tell me. So, what are they supposed to do? [Interruption.] Well, absolutely. You cannot defend it. That's why I'm asking you to vote for no confidence in the Secretary of State for Wales.

And obviously, this betrayal is on top of other betrayals. I'm running out of time now, but I'll just concentrate on the non-electrification of the main railroad to, again, Swansea. There's a common denominator here—Swansea. What have we done? What have we done? So, yes, absolutely—two major manifesto promises not happening. We have absolutely no confidence at all in the current Secretary of State. 

Just to finish on the second point of our no confidence motion, we have no confidence in the post of Secretary of State of Wales either. We are in a new climate now post Brexit. We should be for Governments working equally together with a properly constituted UK council of Ministers, with shared and equal decision-making powers. That's the way forward. We don't need some handbag carrier between Cardiff and London any more. It's a colonial vestige—support the motion.

I have to say I'm very disappointed by one thing in particular, in that I think it was possible to have had a motion today that the whole Assembly could have agreed on, because we are genuinely disappointed by the outcome on the tidal lagoon and I do hope it will be possible for us to revisit things as soon as possible into the medium term. It is incumbent on those who have proposed the scheme to return and look at the figures, because a lot of the detail will now, inevitably, come out, and will be worthy of very intense examination, and that's what we will do on this side of the Assembly.

Can I just speak first of all of the clear overreach that was heavily hinted at, in fairness, in Simon's speech to propose the motion? But we do need to reflect on having respect for the spheres of Government—that's at the heart of a devolved or federal system. What would Plaid Cymru do if Westminster sought to pass a vote of no confidence in the First Minister? I have to say directly—and you'll not be surprised—that I feel this is silly politics. After all, Plaid are ably represented at Westminster—I'll finish this point—and they should have confidence in their colleagues in Westminster to pursue these matters there, where the Secretary of State is, of course, accountable. Now I'll give way.

I'm sure my colleagues are more than capable of doing that in Westminster, but does he not realise that his own Prime Minister consistently uses the Welsh NHS to attack Jeremy Corbyn?

Well, you know, that's the cut and thrust of politics—

Exactly. Exactly.

You've made the point for us. You've made the point for us.

Well, let me finish my point, thank you, Leanne. Politics needs comparisons. At the heart of devolved Government is the theory that you look at different jurisdictions, and you learn from them. That is definitely legitimate. But what you don't do in the Westminster model—indeed, in any democratic system of government—is get one legislature to vote 'no confidence' in a Minister who's not answerable to that legislature. It's constitutional nonsense, as you well know.

Let me move on. Another reason I'm very disappointed in this motion is that Alun Cairns has the unique insight that comes from being a former and long-serving Assembly Member. We greatly value that on this side of the Assembly, and I suspect, behind the scenes, that the Welsh Government do as well, and that's something to be greatly valued. He does have a very proud record of achievement in office, and he's a tireless champion for Wales, as has been outlined. I could go through all the achievements, but they were ably listed by my colleague.

I'm just going to make this one point.

Could I just add this, in a spirit of consensus? The way the UK Government and the Welsh Government co-operate in economic matters, I think, is worthy. And, since 2010, we've seen small and medium-sized enterprises grow by over 18,000 in Wales, and I don't think you can say that's UK Government exclusively, or Welsh Government—it is a partnership. Since 2010, we've seen 117,000 more people in work in Wales and 57,000 fewer unemployed. Again, these are joint achievements, and they are worthy ones. I will give way now, Mick.

Isn't part of the problem that you made very specific promises in your manifesto, they were put out publicly with the specific view of getting people to vote for you, and to win certain constituencies, and so on? Now, I have no problem with that, because that's part of politics. But, doesn't it actually destroy the whole purpose of a manifesto, the credibility of our political system? I mean, what is it—is it the case that when you put those specific promises to the people, in your manifesto, were they just ill-thought-out, were they just opportunist, or was it the case that you just never had any intention whatsoever of delivering on them?

You're quite right that any Government is accountable to the electorate on its platform in a manifesto. I don't think there is any Government that achieves everything it sets out to do, and obviously if you fall below a certain line you can expect a withering response from the electorate. But we are proud of what we are achieving, and we will defend it, and I'm sure the people of Wales, and the UK, will give us fair judgment and see the full range of our successes.

Can I just talk about the post of Secretary of State for Wales, because currently we're having a review of inter-governmental relations? I congratulate the Welsh Government for ensuring that, as part of the arrangements as we exit the EU, we review how we develop shared governance in the UK. It's an essential task—I've said this repeatedly—but we certainly need the Secretary of State's position, at least until more formal shared mechanisms of governance are established and seen to operate. It would be foolish to end the office of Secretary of State until that new constitutional outlook has been achieved.

And I say this directly to Plaid: you would be better advised to get your SNP cousins to back the development of more federal mechanisms to shape inter-governmental relations in the UK, because the truth is, at the moment, the SNP are more keen to rely on bilateral discussions, because they either win them or they condemn the UK Government outright if they don't get their way, even if they don't compromise at all, and they're not interested in the fundamental task that we are interested in, which is to strengthen the UK constitution. I do hope the Labour Members reflect on that point mostly.

As I expressed yesterday, I'm truly devastated by the short-sighted decision of Theresa May's Government to abandon the tidal lagoon. There is total devastation also in my region among the people who are certainly voicing their opinions, and rightly so, too. Yet again, the Westminster Government have shown their utter contempt for my region, reneging on the promise to deliver electrification to Swansea and now scuppering Swansea's chance to lead the world in innovative renewable energy.

But, I accept, the Secretary of State is a lone voice: one Minister out of 118; one voice out of 21 around the Cabinet table. So, I lay the blame for this terrible decision firmly at the door of Theresa May and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Greg Clark. The Secretary of State for Wales is a messenger, after all, and in this instance cannot take all the blame for this decision. However, I really feel that Alun Cairns needs to be much stronger in standing up for Wales, standing up for my region.

Following this debate, I want the Secretary of State to be less of a yes-man and do the right thing for my region, for Wales and for the people. So, while I have much sympathy with the Welsh Conservatives' amendment, I do feel that Wales has been let down by the UK Government and we need to ensure greater collaboration between the UK and Welsh Government. The current arrangements don't seem to be working and I will, therefore, be supporting the Welsh Government's amendment. 

So, the tidal lagoon decision was the latest in a long line of poor decisions by the UK Government. Wales needs both Governments working together if it is to prosper. Thank you. 

Railways not electrified, bridges renamed in the name of the colonial prince, the tidal lagoon scrapped: that is what is being delivered by the Secretary of State for Wales. He is Westminster's voice in Wales and not Wales's voice in Westminster. Manifesto promise after manifesto promise has been broken. Announcement after announcement has been reneged upon. And, of course, yes, votes were won on the back of those promises. 

Five billion pounds-worth of taxpayers' money for nuclear, but a fifth of that can't be found for the tidal lagoon; £3.5 billion to fix up the Palace of Westminster, but a third of that can't be found to build the tidal lagoon; a £1 billion bung to the DUP, but the Swansea bay tidal lagoon is too expensive. Monday encapsulated Westminster's disdain for Wales perfectly. On the very day that they approved a £14 billion runway in London, they scrapped the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. It's almost as if they are trying to rub their failure to invest in Wales in our faces. 

Yesterday, the First Minister, laughably, accused us of letting the Tories, and Wales's representative in the Westminster Government, off the hook. Labour will, today, effectively show their support for the Secretary of State for Wales by abstaining on or possibly voting against our motion. I accept that this is a symbolic motion, but how else are we meant to show our strength of feeling? What levers do we have open to us? He refuses, as has already been pointed out, to give evidence to a committee. How on earth can we hold him to account?

What we need now is actions, not abstentions. We need purpose not press releases, and votes not vitriol. When it comes to the crunch today, Labour, once again, show that they are willing to stand up for Westminster to defend these indefensible actions, instead of standing up for Wales. Because of the jobs and the opportunities that could have come with this tidal lagoon, we have to make our case. Plaid Cymru is of the view that the Secretary of State has to go, and so must the very concept of the position of the Secretary of State for Wales. Westminster can never, and will never, work for Wales—this is what this shows us. So, today, we have a chance to send an unequivocal message: we will not accept our country being treated with such contempt.

I'm disappointed to be here today to speak on this motion of no confidence in the Secretary of State for Wales. He should be Wales's voice in Westminster, but it's clear that he's not that at all. His record is one of absolute, utter failure. With Alun Cairns as Secretary of State, we've seen rail electrification cancelled. In how many countries in the world is it impossible to take an electric train between the two biggest cities? Is there anywhere else in Europe? It's an absolutely shocking state of affairs.

Now we have the Swansea tidal lagoon cancelled. Here was a chance for Wales to be world leaders in renewable energy. The kind of re-industrialisation that Wales desperately needs in the twenty-first century, but Alun Cairns didn't see it that way. He has allowed this Government to scrap that project under his watch. If he had any courage—political courage—then he would have resigned over it, or perhaps he clearly just doesn't care.

If we think of the Severn Bridge, the Secretary of State continues to claim that there is a silent majority who want to see the bridge renamed, when all the polling evidence from the leading companies in the UK shows that a tiny, tiny percentage of people support a name change.

The real question here for me is why Labour is voting against this motion, and just 10 or so Labour AMs are here to debate this motion. They clearly have confidence still in the Secretary of State for Wales. It doesn't surprise me, because I've known for a long time that the Conservatives and Labour are two sides of the same coin—red and blue Tories, working together to keep Wales down.

The people of Wales have lost confidence in the Conservatives with so many projects not delivered and promises broken. But we can have nuclear reactors, nuclear mud and superprisons dumped on us. And this is the Wales that we live in today. The simple truth is that Labour are just as bad as the Conservatives. They wouldn't even admit that they supported the change in the name of the bridge. It took a freedom of information request to discover that. I wonder if, on Monday, we'll see the First Minister bending his knee to the monarchy just like the Conservative Prime Minister before him.

Wales needs to stand on its own two feet and Labour is stopping us doing that. The Conservatives are stopping us doing that. So, it's time for the Welsh people to stand up, because clearly we'll get nothing while we keep being overlooked time and time again, as part of this very unequal, so-called United Kingdom.

Thank you. And, finally, Neil Hamilton.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very glad that we're having this debate today, and I'm afraid I don't share the constitutional objections that David Melding voiced earlier on. I think that this Assembly is entitled to express a view upon the competence of United Kingdom Ministers where their responsibilities touch directly upon Wales and the interests of its people. That seems to me entirely proper and I'm glad we're having this debate today, although I shall not be supporting the Plaid Cymru motion because, unfortunately, the second part of it is something that I don't agree with.

But I do think that we are certainly entitled, in relation to this iconic issue of the tidal lagoon and, indeed, rail electrification, to take a view upon the competence of the Secretary of State. It is a pretty moth-eaten and threadbare defence of the current Secretary of State that we shouldn't be debating this issue because it smacks of party politics. Well, if we in this institution are not representatives of party politics, what on earth are we here for? But that's not to say that we're making points in this debate purely for specious party political reasons. There is obviously very real anger on this side of the Chamber about the decision on the tidal lagoon, and I feel very sorry for Conservative colleagues, who clearly share that feeling but can't express it in quite the same way. Because the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Cabinet have made the tide go out upon Conservative fortunes in this respect, and left them right up the creek.

To say that Alun Cairns has great achievements to his name in the form of the fiscal framework really is to scrape the bottom of the barrel. If you go across to the Eli Jenkins tonight and, over a pint, ask the denizens at the bar what will Alun Cairns be remembered for, is it the Welsh fiscal framework or the man who torpedoed the tidal lagoon—if you can torpedo a lagoon—then I think the answer is pretty obvious and requires no explanation.

Now—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, sure.

Thank you very much, Neil. I haven't got enough time to say what he has done. He is a son of Wales and, if it wasn't for him, I can assure you that Tata Steel wouldn't be there in Port Talbot. So, don't forget. You have a very short memory—[Interruption.] You have a very short memory here, and his service to this country will be remembered and he will be there to help this country. And don't forget that this tidal lagoon is not dead yet.

Well, I have great respect for minority opinion, because I'm in a very small minority myself in this house, but I think those who hold that opinion will be in an even smaller minority than the one in which I normally find myself.

But whilst I support the office of Secretary of State for Wales, I don't think I can support the current occupant of it. Of course we must continue to have a Secretary of State for Wales, because Wales is part of the United Kingdom and there are many matters of great importance that are not devolved, and he is Wales's voice in the Cabinet. But the question is: how effective is that voice? That is the key question here, and I think the examples that have been cited in this debate already show that that voice is not, in fact, effective at all.

Now, everybody knows that I am a sceptic on matters of green energy in many respects, but, if we are going to have green energy projects, it seems to me that tidal energy and wave energy offer much better long-term value for money than projects like windfarms, because at least tidal energy is predictable and it isn't subject to the intermittency of solar or wind. And, for the reasons that have been cited about the development of a global new technology that might have further important spin-offs for Wales, there are other reasons why this project should have been supported.

Now, it was indeed coincidental, wasn't it, that this decision was announced on the same day as the investment in Heathrow, for which we've been waiting it seems almost since the dawn of time to be made—that these two announcements should be made together. Because that was, I suppose, a good day to bury bad news for Wales, except that I'm afraid the roar of the jets taking off from Heathrow will not be sufficient to drown the howls of anger that come from Wales at being forgotten, once again, in the Government's priority.

So, I'm afraid to say that the Government has failed Wales in this respect and in many other respects as well. And I'm sorry, because Alun Cairns is a likeable chap, but I'm afraid politics, effective politics, is about more than being likeable. You've got to be able to achieve results. I was a schoolboy when the first Secretary of State for Wales was appointed in the form of Jim Griffiths. He was my Member of Parliament, and, I must say, in the 50-odd years since we've seen some duds holding that office, but I think Alun Cairns will be way down the list on the basis of the historical experience. And, if we look for historical parallels, perhaps the most devastating parliamentary insult ever uttered against a Government Minister was that by Disraeli about Lord John Russell, who said that if a traveller from afar were to be told that such a man were Leader of the House of Commons, he might well begin to understand how the Egyptians worshipped an insect.

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mark Drakeford?

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this afternoon's debate. It's a debate we're having, of course, because of the UK Government's decision on Monday not to support the Swansea bay tidal lagoon project, a pathfinder project that would have tested the viability of tidal lagoon energy generation and could have paved the way for the development of a wider industry in Wales, an industry, as Simon Thomas said in opening, that had the potential to be of global significance.

Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, it's taken the UK Government almost a year and a half to reach this decision. Indeed, they had had the report of its own independent adviser that concluded that it should be supported on a no-regrets basis for fully six months before it entered a general election making the promises that Mick Antoniw pointed out in his intervention—six long months in which it could have made its mind up about it. In fact, it went to the election making promises to the people of that part of south Wales and, ever since, instead of support, we have witnessed a depressing catalogue of prevarication, obfuscation, delay, and a reluctance even to engage with the many interests who have wanted to support the proposal for the Swansea bay tidal lagoon.

As we've heard in the debate, this is a Government, of course, with form when it comes to saying 'no' to Wales. The dust has barely settled on the UK Government's short-sighted decision to renege on its promise to electrify the main line all the way to Swansea. Many of us here will remember the former Secretary of State for Wales's, Cheryl Gillan's, promises about faster electric trains all the way to Swansea as she sat on board one of those diesel trains that still make their way every day to and from Paddington. And, as we have learnt, and as Simon Thomas says, we now know that the Prime Minister personally approved the cancellation of the electrification of the Cardiff to Swansea stretch of the railway. That Cardiff to Swansea main line electrification was just one in a series of much-needed infrastructure projects to be cancelled by that UK Government.

Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, I thank the Conservative Party for their amendment. It cheered up the end of a long afternoon yesterday with its powerful assertion that the age of satire is still alive and well in the seats opposite. Short of parting the Red Sea, we now know that everything that has happened in Wales in living memory was due to the single-handed efforts of the Secretary of State for Wales. On closer examination, however, I wonder, Dirprwy Lywydd, if the Table Office might consider attaching a health warning to amendments of this sort in future, a sort of 'check against reality' message, because as I began to read my way down the significant achievements of the Secretary of State for Wales, I came, first of all, to his role in the agreement with the Welsh Government of an historic fiscal framework. Well, I well remember, Dirprwy Lywydd, the autumn of 2016 as I met every month, and more than monthly, with the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke. I remember signing the historical fiscal framework with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I don't remember the Secretary of State in a single one of those meetings. I did see him in a photo opportunity with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury later in that day, and it had not occurred to me that his role in a photo opportunity would make its way into a motion in front of the National Assembly for Wales as an historic achievement. I could go through the rest of the amendment—[Interruption.] Mr Ramsay.

As an intervention was required, I'm sure that the Secretary of State was there in spirit, Cabinet Secretary—[Interruption.] And he might not have been in those particular meetings, but, of course, the role of Secretary of State is to help liaise and facilitate those sorts of agreements, and, at the end of the day, the fiscal framework was something that you worked very hard on, I know, and I have always paid you credit, Cabinet Secretary, and, without the role of Westminster, that wouldn't have happened, would it?

Well, of course, I thank Nick Ramsay—the idea of the Secretary of State for Wales as Marley's ghost, shaking his chains in the background of my meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is an entertaining one. Given his record on other matters, myself, I am inclined to be grateful for the fact that he wasn't in the room, given what might have happened had he been there.

Let me turn, Dirprwy Lywydd, to the motion itself. The Government amendment differs from the motion, I think, simply in means rather than ends. There was very little in what Simon Thomas had to say in opening this debate that I would have dissented from at all. I think it is simply that, on this side, we do not believe that it makes best sense for this institution to be drawn into passing motions of no confidence in individuals who are not elected to the National Assembly nor answerable to it.

Moreover, Dirprwy Lywydd, in the minds of the public, a motion of no confidence in a political setting has a particular purpose: if it is carried, the individual must resign. And we know that this would not be the case in this instance; it would be a gesture, the leader of Plaid Cymru told us. And my heart sank, because I really did not believe that we had set up the National Assembly for Wales to be an outpost of gesture politics.

The Government amendment does two things: it identifies the office where responsibility lies—and I do not dissent from anything that has been said by Plaid Cymru Members about the responsibility that lies with that office holder—and then it goes on to place the failures of that office in the wider context of the unsustainable state of inter-governmental machinery here in the United Kingdom.

This is more than the failure of an individual, Dirprwy Lywydd; it is the failure of a Government. Of course it is right that the National Assembly should register its verdict on the scale of anger and disappointment felt at the decision and pin the responsibility where it lies. But we have to go beyond that; we have to think about how this could be put right for the future. That's what's the Government amendment does, and I hope Members will support it this afternoon.

Thank you. Can I now call Simon Thomas to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I’m grateful to everyone who took part in the debate. Like Mark Drakeford, I was busily seeing this wizard appearing on the horizon with a wand that could change the course of Welsh politics. But the reality here, of course, is that decisions, or a lack of decisions, taken by the Westminster Government have held back two projects that would have been very important to Wales: the electrification to Swansea, and, secondly, the tidal lagoon in Swansea bay. Although I can accept, of course, that the Conservative Party want to defend the Secretary of State for Wales—I accept that the Government here perhaps doesn’t want to support a motion of this kind because of inter-governmental issues—I can’t accept that it wouldn’t be appropriate for us as a democratically elected Parliament to express a view on the performance of the Secretary of State for Wales. It’s not unconstitutional to do that. It is political—yes, it’s political, but we are here, and we are elected, to be political and to point the finger of political responsibility at where the problem lies.

In this case, I want to pick up on one point made by the Cabinet Secretary. I accept what he says. I accept that he has an argument when he says that we shouldn’t pass a motion of no confidence in a member of another Parliament, but to go as far as to say that this place can’t express no confidence in anyone not elected to this place is going far too far. If a health board in Wales were failing entirely, we would want a vote of no confidence in the administration of that health board, would we not? So, it is appropriate that we use the mechanisms available to us, which are in order, to do that. It takes us into a political mire perhaps, I accept that, but I’m not entirely sure why the Government haven’t been more creative in responding to this, rather than deleting all and replacing—which, to all intents and purposes, agrees with the second part of our amendment that we need to make improvement in the inter-governmental machinery—and allowing Labour backbench Members to push that button to say that they have no confidence in Alun Cairns. It's as simple as that, because that, I know, is how most Members on that side of the Chamber feel.

Now, everyone has taken part in their—

Will the Member take an intervention?

I'll take a quick intervention.

Thanks for giving way. I fully understand why you want to bring forward a debate on the tidal lagoon, and, as you know, we share the disappointment of the Assembly and Wales that that hasn't gone ahead. Do you think there would have been a case, though, for putting together a motion that all parties here could have signed up to pretty easily, which would still have had issues with the UK Government, but in a constructive way? So, there was a different way to do it, which is why I do understand the point that the Cabinet Secretary made about a no confidence motion.

I remember putting together such a motion. I led a backbench debate on such a motion. Every single person in this Assembly supported that motion, and what did the Westminster Government do in response to that motion? It said, 'No, thanks.' We passed a motion here, all parties in favour of the tidal lagoon, and it's been rejected by Westminster. I'm not against what the Member has suggested, but I think today is a day for the anger expressed in Swansea to come out and for us to be the tribunes of the people in voicing that anger. That's for today.

If I could turn to some of the more positive points made. Paul Davies, welcome to your first event as leader of the Conservative group—[Interruption.] Pro tem or however you want to describe the role. Paul has clearly stated that there is still an opportunity for tidal energy, but what investor now is going to come to Wales and have negotiations with the Welsh Government and the Westminster Government believing that their money and the hard work that they’ve put in over years could be written off in a very brief statement to the House of Commons on the back of six pages of ropey mathematics, if I may say so? Just look at what Marine Energy Wales, which of course is based in Pembrokeshire, has said. They have said that this is a disregard for the objectives and ambitions of Wales in comparison to what the Westminster Government is doing. You will know that companies such as Ledwood in Pembroke Dock were all ready to be part of building this tidal lagoon.

I fear that we have pulled the plug—if I can put it in those terms—not on one scheme but on a whole industry and a whole process for many years. The next time someone comes to develop tidal energy in Wales, we’ll have to look at a company from elsewhere, from France or China, and we will have to accept their terms rather than being part of developing this here. That’s the failure of Westminster and the failure of the Secretary of state more specifically.

I don’t have any time now to cover all the points made but I will conclude by saying that we’ve received a very clear message from Westminster: two huge, important proposals worth over £2 billion and a chance to invest in Wales, creating thousands of jobs, creating new industries, creating new opportunities—they have been rejected on the basis of very, very ropey evidence. Today is the time to send a message unanimously and clearly to the Secretary of State: 'You have failed in your job, now move aside and let somebody else take on that role.'

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time.

Item 6 on our agenda this afternoon is a debate on a Member's legislative proposal: leasehold residential houses. I call on Mick Antoniw to move the motion. Mick Antoniw.

I'm grateful for the opportunity today to introduce this Member's legislative proposal to abolish leasehold tenure for new residential houses. We have, of course, debated this issue on several occasions. On the last occasion, this Chamber held a very detailed, informed and passionate individual Members' debate on the problems arising from the renewed growth of leasehold housing and the associated consequences for tenants of the leasehold agreements that they were subject to. The motion we debated attracted cross-party support, and it was clear from Members' contributions that leasehold is a problem in every part of Wales. Since that debate, there has been a statement from the Minister. It does not rule out legislation, but focuses on voluntary agreement with a number of major developers not to build new leasehold housing.

Now, I very much welcome that statement, but make the argument today that we should go further, and we should put the issue beyond any future doubt by introducing a short and a simple piece of legislation that would prohibit, by law, any new leasehold houses being built in Wales. So, in order to explain my reasoning, it would be helpful to remind Members of the background to this issue. There are an estimated 200,000 leasehold properties in Wales. Leasehold is a relic from the eleventh century, a time when land meant power—and unfortunately it still does. For today's landowner, leasehold means maximising income and retaining control of the land they own, but for the leaseholder it means the exact opposite: uncontrollable costs and a lack of control over what they can do with the property that they own. So, when the Scottish Government legislated to abolish feudal tenure, they got the tone exactly right.

Like many Members, I have received representations from constituents where the root cause is the inherent unfairness, the complexity and outdated nature of leasehold contracts, complaints about spiralling ground rents, people feeling trapped in their own home, and property values that plummet year on year as the remaining lease reduces—and those are commonplace. When leaseholders seek either to renew their lease or to buy the freehold of their home, they are held to ransom. Leaseholders are completely defenceless before the ground landlord. And because of the profitability of the leasehold system, finance corporations have brought out a great many landlords, and as result, a person's home is no longer a rock on which their life is built, but a commodity to trade and speculate on. So, to me, it is totally sensible that the UK Government have committed to work with the Law Commission to support legal reform. The complexity of leasehold contracts, with elements of contract and property law intertwined, is such that it makes sense to await the Law Commission proposals, subsequent to the introduction of UK-wide legislation, to deal with all the retrospective consequences, which we do not, in any event, have the constitutional competence to deal with at the present time.

So, today's debate is about two things. Primarily, it is a proposal for the introduction of a simple piece of Welsh legislation to prohibit any future building of leasehold houses. It does not relate to apartments or shared buildings; solely to new residential houses. Secondly, this proposal requires developers and selling agents to provide potential buyers of existing leasehold properties with relevant facts about leasehold tenure. [Interruption.] Yes, I will.

Just a matter of clarity: you said it wouldn't apply to shared buildings, but it would to residential houses. How would you address the issue of flying freeholds?

How would I address the issue of—?

Flying freeholds, where you have different people living in their own homes, but within buildings that overlap other buildings. Therefore, flying freeholds compromise their ability to address repairs.

I think any property that involves a shared ownership of different parties of the freehold will be excluded. This solely relates to single-ownership new housing.

We all know that buying a property is the most significant financial decision most people will make, so it is vital that prospective purchasers understand the full implications and consequences of buying a leasehold property. So, in April last year, the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold reform called for leasehold houses to be banned, and for an end to onerous ground rents. And then, in a written statement in December 2017, the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, announced a package of measures to crack down on unfair leasehold practices in England, including legislation banning new leaseholds. He said that

'It’s clear that far too many new houses are being built and sold as leaseholds, exploiting homebuyers with unfair agreements and spiralling ground rents. Enough is enough. These practices are unjust, unnecessary and need to stop.'

So, those are encouraging words. In Welsh Labour's 2017 manifesto, we also made our position clear that we will back those who own their homes, including leaseholders who are currently unprotected from rises in ground rents:

'A Labour Government will give leaseholders security from rip-off ground rents and end the routine use of leasehold houses in new developments.'

In 2016, leasehold transactions accounted for 22 per cent of transactions of new-build properties. Responding again in a Westminster debate, the Minister for housing then noted that

'whether Wales abolishes leasehold is a devolved matter.'

So, the power is in our hands. We have a Labour manifesto commitment to legislate, we have a Welsh Labour Government, we have general cross-party support for abolition, and whilst we cannot prevent every leasehold horror story that our constituents have to endure, we do have the competence to at least stop the problem going any larger. We have the ability to bring an end once and for all to any future uncertainty regarding leasehold houses. We can send a clear message to all developers and landowners, present and future, that leasehold tenure is no longer an acceptable housing option in Wales. We can lead the way on this issue, and also send a message to the rest of the UK—to property developers, to landowners, to all those foreign-owned companies who are considering investing in property in Wales and the UK—that leasehold for housing is a relic of the past, and by passing a simple piece of legislation, we can confine it to the dustbins of history.

Thank you. Can I just remind all speakers now that it is a legislative proposal debate? Therefore, the time limit for speakers is three minutes. Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much. Fifty-seven per cent of leaseholders regret that they've bought leasehold properties, and this is far too high a figure, and is unacceptable, of course. These issues of concern include the burdensome rent issues that turn to be unaffordable and can make it very difficult to sell on the property, and other payments for consent to adapt the property, and permission to sell, can add to costs.

In remembering the complexity of the system and individual leasehold transactions, many leaseholders will have been entirely reliant on their legal adviser for any concerns before buying property, and it's possible that some leaseholders—possibly very many of them—didn't realise exactly what they were signing up to. Therefore, the intention in the Bill to place a duty on agents to provide information about the implications of leasehold is very valuable and something I agree entirely with.

The Research Service at the Assembly has carried out an analysis of the data of the Land Registry, and has noted that Wales has certain areas where there are many new homes being sold on leasehold. Many of those areas are in north Wales, with Aberconwy, Clwyd west, Wrexham and Delyn at the top of the table in terms of the number of properties sold as leaseholds. The new Bill would, of course, mean that planning applications for new housing under leasehold would be rejected, and that is something that I am supportive of.

There could be exceptional circumstances, of course. I can't personally think of any such circumstances where new leasehold homes should be allowed, but that is something that should be given consideration as scrutiny is undertaken on the Bill, in case there are some unintended consequences as a result of that. But with that word of warning, I congratulate you on bringing this issue forward, and I look forward to seeing the Bill proceed.

I wanted to also mention some examples of the difficulties that homeowners are facing in Wales, because in my own constituency of Newport East I recently met with a delegation from a prestige riverside housing development, where there are 81 leaseholders who, shortly after purchasing, found that their ground rents would double every 10 years, which wasn't brought to their attention when they made the purchases of the leases, and that the freehold will subsequently be sold on to a different company to the developer. It was only when, really, these issues came to national UK prominence and the UK Government took steps to address them that they became aware of the full scale of the problems, and just what a scandal these matters constitute. The developer then introduced a voluntary scheme to deal with the ground rent issue so that it will no longer double every 10 years, but it will, in fact, be increased in line with the retail price index, but that doesn't apply to those who bought from the company that the freeholds had been sold on to. So, there are now some leaseholders who will have their ground rent doubled every 10 years, and others whose ground rent will go up in line with the retail price index. They feel very strongly, all of them, no matter what position they're in, that these sharp practices need to be addressed and prevented in the future. There is a question, of course, in terms of what can be prevented, but also what can be done for people who are currently in that position, and I'm very pleased that Welsh Government is working with UK Government on the generality of these issues to take forward necessary reform, which hopefully will apply in Wales to our particular circumstances as well as in England. So, I think it's really important that Welsh Government continues to look at these issues in close co-operation with UK Government, but also that we support this Member's legislative proposal, which will deal clearly with one aspect of the problems for the future.

Thanks to Mick Antoniw for bringing today's debate. We are covering a lot of similar areas to what we covered in the individual Member's debate, which Mick was also involved in, with other people, so I won't reiterate everything I said then—most of the points are still valid. In UKIP we broadly agree with the principle of severely restricting leasehold tenure in future new builds, which is what Mick is trying to achieve, and this is a very real issue. We did have reform of leaseholds in Wales during the 1950s, but we know that leaseholds are now creeping back in. Mick quoted the figure of 200,000 leasehold homes in Wales, so we agree that this is an issue and it would be good if we could address it meaningfully. I know that the Welsh Government has considered this and there is some action that is coming, so it will be interesting to hear what they say today.

To return to material considerations arising from this problem, John Griffiths mentioned rising ground rents. There's also a problem of significant differences in valuations of houses when they go onto the market, if there are differences with somebody owning a freehold and someone else next door owning a leasehold. To illustrate that, I have a constituent in the Cynon Valley who eventually sold her house for £110,000 because she was only a leaseholder, whereas other properties in the same street were going for £140,000, which is a significant loss. That individual didn't realise when she bought her property what a leasehold even was, so that does raise also the related issue of financial education and helping to ensure people actually know what they're entering into when they sign up to these mortgages in the first place.

To conclude, we support the principles behind this motion, which we will happily support today. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I'm glad to support Mick Antoniw's legislative proposal. It addresses an issue that I spoke about in the individual Member's debate, affecting my constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan, with 3,500 new houses at the Quays waterfront area of Barry built by a consortium, Taylor Wimpey, Barratt and Persimmon. At that time I drew attention to the fact that the Welsh Government's Help to Buy scheme had supported a large percentage of new buyers in this highly desirable location, linking the town with Barry Island via a new road—an important development for the town of Barry. But concerns were raised with me about the use of leasehold by the developers, and I raised these concerns with the Minister earlier this year. I made the point in January that we're subsidising supporting homebuyers with Help to Buy with public funding, and thereby intervening in the housing market for the benefit of developers and, indeed, for the homebuyers. But they can be disadvantaged in the short and long term by leasehold arrangements imposed on them in new developments, so I was very glad to acknowledge the Minister's announcement on 6 March. That package of measures, which actually she launched in Barry, on a visit to the Quays, where she met with the developers—for houses and flats that qualify for support under Help to Buy, she did include this new package including new criteria that will require a developer to present a genuine reason for a house to be marketed as leasehold as well as a number of important measures.

I hope the Cabinet Secretary can update us on developments, because in terms of work with the Home Builders Federation, they are working at alternatives to leasehold, such as commonhold, using the right-to-manage legislation. But we have heard again today compelling evidence of failures, of profit-making management companies leaving residents vulnerable and living in unacceptable conditions. So, although there will be leasehold reform needed, in particular in relation to flats and shared property homes, I do support Mick Antoniw in his call for a made-in-Wales legislative solution. We have the powers to prohibit new houses to be developed as leasehold. Wales could lead the way.

Can I call the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services, Alun Davies?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Could I start, like other Members who've spoken this afternoon, by thanking Mick Antoniw for bringing forward this proposal? I think all of us who've listened to this short debate today have been quite taken with the level of agreement on all sides of the Chamber. I know that all Members have spoken from real personal and constituency experience on these matters, and were I standing here as a Member for Blaenau Gwent, I would also join in many of those conversations as well. I think it's very clear that not only are there those strong views across the Chamber, but that there is also, as I've noted, strong agreement across the Chamber as well.

I was very taken with Mick Antoniw's description of leasehold as a feudal relic and one that should be designated to history, and it's something that I have great sympathy for, I have to say. I don't have any disagreement with the Member for Pontypridd on these matters. And I know that he's discussed on a number of times with the Minister that these are very real issues for many thousands of people.

But we also know that leasehold is a tenure that does have some relevance where there are sites that include communal spaces and facilities, and I know that Members on all sides of the Chamber recognise that again this afternoon. But we also must agree that there appears to be very little justification for offering new-build houses as leasehold. It is also very clear that many people who have purchased a leasehold property were not fully aware of what leasehold really means and what their obligations and rights are as a consequence of that sort of contractual relationship. A Government-funded leasehold advisory service can help, and it has had over 30,000 visits to its website from clients in Wales in the last year or so. We have already acted to address some of these issues, and I'm grateful to the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan for recognising that and the Minister has already put a number of measures in place. The announcement made in March has already been described, and I hope Members will recognise that the Government is moving to take the actions that we're able to do.

We have removed support through Help to Buy—Wales to new leasehold houses and we are also ensuring that there is an undertaking from the five main developers in Wales that in future they will not offer leasehold new-build houses for sale, except where there are a few necessary exemptions. To ensure that these properties that are legitimately offered through Help to Buy—Wales on a leasehold basis offer a fair deal, new requirement for minimum lease length and restrictions to ground rent now apply to properties purchased through the scheme. Anyone buying a home can chose to use a Help to Buy—Wales accredited conveyancer and be assured that they have been trained to provide the advice that buyers need and require.

Deputy Presiding Officer, this is an extremely complex area of law and this is why the Welsh Government is working together with the United Kingdom Government to support a Law Commission project to simplify and improve leasehold enfranchisement and to reinvigorate commonhold as an alternative to leasehold. Since these matter require some careful consideration, I hope that Members across the Chamber will recognise that the Law Commission is ideally placed to lead this work. In addition to these measures, we are also bringing together a multidisciplinary group to advise on further non-legislative steps, including a code of practice to raise standards and to professionalise property management. The Minister will be issuing a written statement on these matters in the coming weeks. The Minister has also asked for research to be conducted to ascertain the scope and extent of issues with leasehold in Wales so that we'll be in a better position to take the right steps to address the real problems that are being experienced. And let me say this and be absolutely clear: the Government is absolutely clear that there are these real difficulties and we recognise the power of the argument that has been made this afternoon. 

So, in closing, Deputy Presiding Officer, I welcome Mick Antoniw's work to keep this important issue high on the political agenda, and I would like to assure him that the Government has certainly not ruled out future legislation in this area. The planning Minister, of course, the Cabinet Secretary for environment, is in her place and has also listened to this debate this afternoon, and she understands and recognises the issues around the planning system and the planning structures that your legislation seeks to address. 

Without a detailed proposal, we are unable to commit the Government this afternoon to a motion that has been brought forward here, so I will be asking Ministers to abstain on this, but in doing so I will also be giving a very clear undertaking on the record, Deputy Presiding Officer, that we will continue to have a conversation with the Member for Pontypridd and other Members who have raised issues this afternoon to ensure that we are in a position to ensure that we do have the structures in place—legislative if necessary, non-legislative certainly—to ensure that people seeking a home will have protections in place.

Thank you very much. Can I now call on Mick Antoniw to reply to the debate?

Can I firstly thank all those who spoke in the debate and the inevitable list that we all have of horror stories of the existing system? Can I also very much thank the Cabinet Secretary for the commitment he's made, which I think has moved further on to at least beginning to look at the reality of a possible piece of legislation? Much of what the Cabinet Secretary said I very much agree with, but it is dealing with the issue of the Law Commission and all the retrospective issues. The point about this particular recommendation in respect of legislation is that it is saying that we can actually send not only a clear principled message out, we can clear the decks, we can use the powers that we have for a very simple piece of legislation, which is very focused, that basically says, 'Enough is enough—there will be no more leasehold in respect of new-house ownership.' 

The reason why we should use that power is because—I'll be blunt about it—the commitments we have from the house building organisations are, to be honest, not really worth the paper they're written on. In four or five years' time, if the needs of the profitability of those companies can be increased by having leasehold tenure, then that's what will happen. These are companies. We live in a capitalist society, unfortunately. We live in a capitalist society and the purpose of these companies is to maximise profits. So, we need to ensure that these issues—whether they be land backing, accumulation of land, advanced planning, which these companies do, over 10, 20, 30 years ahead—we are expunging, we are removing the possibility of further leaseholds coming back to haunt us in the future. It gives us complete principled clarity and it is an example of where we can use our powers for the benefit of our people for future generations. Isn't that what the future generations Act was about? It's about taking action, it's about doing things that actually protect future generations. And a simple, short piece of legislation like this would make a significant contribution to establishing that principle and that clarity and would show that this Assembly has powers and uses its powers for the benefit of the people of Wales.

Thank you. The proposal is to note the proposal. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We move on to item 7, which is a debate on petitions P-04-472, 'Make the MTAN law', and P-04-575, 'Call in All Opencast Mining Planning Applications'. I call on the Chair of the Petitions Committee to move the motion—David Rowlands.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you for the opportunity to have this debate about the Petitions Committee's report on two petitions concerning opencast mining. Both petitions were submitted during the previous Assembly session and have been under discussion for a considerable length of time. Therefore, I would like to begin by acknowledging the work that has been done on these issues by Members in both the current and previous Assemblies. In particular, I would like to place on record our thanks to the previous Petitions Committee. 

Petition P-04-472, which was submitted by Dr John Cox and collected 680 signatures, concerns the status of 'Minerals Technical Advice Note 2: Coal', more commonly known as MTAN 2. Dr Cox’s contention is that the content of the MTAN should be made mandatory in planning law in Wales. In particular, he has referred to the requirement for there to be a 500m buffer zone around opencast workings and provided examples of where this has not been enforced.

The second petition to the Assembly, P-04-575, calls for all opencast mining planning applications to be called in and determined by the Welsh Government. It was submitted by the United Valleys Action Group, led by Terry Evans, and collected 180 signatures. The Petitions Committee would like to acknowledge the conscientious, determined and patient way in which both sets of petitioners have engaged with the Assembly during the time these petitions have been under consideration.

We laid our report on these petitions in the Table Office on 27 April. The report contains an overview of the evidence we received during our consideration of these issues, in both the fourth and fifth Assemblies. Members will be aware that all the evidence we have received, whether written or oral, is also publicly available through the Assembly’s website.

I will speak about some of the evidence during the rest of this contribution. The MTAN guidance covers a wide range of issues relating to coal developments, including the selection of sites, protection of the environment and reducing the impact of coal extraction on local communities. It, like other planning policy and guidance, should be taken into account in planning decisions, but there is no explicit statutory requirement for it to be followed.

Dr Cox’s petition calls for the MTAN to be put onto a statutory basis and made mandatory in planning law. The petition was prompted by the planning process that followed an application for an opencast mine at Varteg Hill in Torfaen. This is an issue that I am aware has been raised in this Chamber on a number of previous occasions, notably by Lynne Neagle, and we acknowledge her considerable contribution to the discussions around MTAN.

This application went against aspects of the MTAN guidelines, including in relation to the buffer zone around the proposed works. The application was rejected by Torfaen County Borough Council, but was then subject to an appeal by the developer. Dr Cox’s view was that the planning inspector proceeded to disregard the MTAN guidelines during the hearings and in reaching the decision to approve the application. The result was the petition’s contention that the guidelines should be strengthened by being placed on a statutory footing.

In response, the Welsh Government has argued that planning policies need to have a flexibility that would not be possible if they were made law. However, the Cabinet Secretary has stated on the record her view that planning policy should be taken into consideration at all stages during the planning process. The committee concurs with this. However, we have also raised concerns over the degree of oversight within the Planning Inspectorate itself, and whether auditing is conducted on the decisions taken by inspectors. We consider this to be extremely important in relation to ensuring there is a basic consistency of approach taken, especially in relation to appeals.

The petition from the United Valleys Action Group proposed that all opencast mining planning applications over a certain size should be called in by the Welsh Government. This would be a way to potentially achieve that consistency. The petitioners have argued that the implications of these developments are far-reaching and long-standing, with effects beyond the immediate locality. Therefore, they feel such applications should be considered on a national basis.

The committee notes that the call-in process is concerned with the question of who should take a planning decision, rather than the merits, or otherwise, of a specific application. The grounds for call-in can include instances where an application may have effects beyond the immediate area; is likely to significantly affect areas of landscape or nature; or is in conflict with national planning policies. The petitioner's argument is that these criteria are all relevant to applications for opencast mining developments. Furthermore, they have raised concerns over whether the technical knowledge and expertise exists within local planning authorities to deal effectively with planning applications of this type. However, Ministers have expressed the view that the power to call in applications should be used selectively. Therefore, the Welsh Government does not consider a blanket policy to call in all planning applications of this type to be appropriate.

I will now turn to recent general developments in relation to coal extraction, and the Welsh Government’s planning policies in particular. The Cabinet Secretary has made clear on several occasions that the Welsh Government’s intention is to move towards a low-carbon economy and away from the continued use of fossil fuels. The recent consultation on changes to 'Planning Policy Wales' has confirmed this direction of travel. In relation to opencast mining, the version of the policy put out to consultation stated that,

'Proposals for opencast, deep-mine development or colliery spoil disposal should not be permitted.'

The Petitions Committee welcomed this approach in our report. The consultation has now closed, and we would, of course, be interested in any updates that the Cabinet Secretary can provide today on this aspect of future national planning policy.

I wish to also touch briefly on the issues of legacy and reinstatement. A number of examples have been highlighted to us where restoration works at opencast sites have been inadequate, or even non-existent. Both sets of petitioners argued strongly that much more needed to be done on this, including that a deposit equivalent to the full costs of site restoration should be obtained upfront by local authorities. We note that this issue has also been the subject of recent coverage in the media. Again, this is an issue covered within 'Planning Policy Wales'. However, while the draft policy stresses the importance of restoration, it stops short of requiring a full upfront deposit. This approach has clearly led to issues in the past where local authorities have not been able to recover the necessary costs for restoration. The committee has concluded that effective guarantees must be obtained from those responsible for opencast mine developments. Potentially, this may include an upfront deposit for the full costs of site restoration or reinstatement. We believe that the Welsh Government should keep the effectiveness of national policy in this regard under close review.

To conclude, based upon the evidence gathered over a substantial period of time, the committee reached four conclusions. We are pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has subsequently expressed her support for all of these. It currently appears unlikely that Wales will see further applications for opencast mining in the future. Furthermore, if planning policy is revised along the lines proposed, it would seem likely that any such applications would be refused. Whilst this should be of some comfort to people who have petitioned the Assembly on this subject, it is also vital that the Welsh Government and local planning authorities effectively enforce these policies that exist to safeguard local communities and the environment. This must include ensuring that national planning policies are followed and upheld, except, perhaps, in exceptional circumstances, and that adequate provision can be guaranteed and utilised to return sites to suitable use by local communities. Diolch yn fawr.

I'm very pleased to just make a brief contribution in this debate. As David Rowlands has highlighted, the petition 'Make the MTAN law' was tabled by one of my constituents, Dr John Cox, and I have worked closely with him on that petition and gave evidence to the Petitions Committee back in May 2013. As David Rowlands has said, the petition was tabled after Torfaen council had rejected the application to opencast mine at Varteg Hill. That application was to opencast just metres from residents' homes and a local primary school.

I absolutely think that Torfaen council did the right thing. They looked at the MTAN and they saw that there was a buffer zone there, and on that basis, they rejected the application. It is, of course, not without risk for a local authority to turn down an application because there's always the possibility of an appeal and of cash-strapped local authorities being hit with costs if they lose that appeal. However, Torfaen council did the right thing and rejected it, but unfortunately, the developers appealed and it went to a full planning inquiry.

At that point, the planning inspector seemingly disregarded the guidance in the MTAN policy about the buffer zone and recommended an approval. So, he flew directly in the face of not just Welsh Government policy, but policy that was unanimously agreed by this Assembly. And it was that which led to this petition, really, because we didn't believe that there should be this disjoint in Welsh Government policy, Assembly policy, and what actually happens on the ground.

I'm pleased that we're debating this report today, and I very much hope that David Rowlands is right in looking forward to hearing what the Cabinet Secretary's going to say, and I hope that we won't see new opencast applications. But I'm not entirely clear from this report how this is going to protect communities going forward from the same kind of thing happening that happened in Varteg Hill. We need some assurances that where there is a policy in place, planning inspectors are going to abide by this policy.

I'm grateful to David Rowlands for his kind words to me, but I did just want to raise concerns about the very long length of time it has taken for this petition to come to fruition here. It's been five years, and I think we have to recognise that when citizens or communities approach the Petitions Committee, they do so because they need our help and support with an issue there and then, really. I think it is incumbent on all of us to try and respond to those concerns in as timely a way as possible. I don't know why it has taken so long for this to come to debate today, but I do think that is something that we need to look at, because there's no point having a Petitions Committee if we can't respond in a timely and effective way to the concerns of the citizens of Wales.

I look forward to hearing the Cabinet Secretary's assurances that other communities in Wales—and hopefully, certainly, my community in particular—will never be put in the position that the residents of Varteg and Torfaen council were put in some years ago.

Just before I finish, I would like to place on record my very grateful thanks to Carl Sargeant who, thankfully, did have the good sense to reject the application against the recommendation of the Planning Inspectorate. So, a very big thank you from myself and the residents of Varteg to Carl Sargeant. Thank you.

Mark Reckless.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer, and I'm sure some Members from the previous Assemblies will have fond memories come to mind of seeing you in the chair. May I also put my congratulations on the record for your investiture with a CBE yesterday from Prince Charles?

The Petitions Committee, I was quite struck that the Petitions Committee was coming here today notwithstanding how long ago these petitions initially came.  There may have been particular reasons for delays, but for my part, I would like to thank David Rowlands as Chair, and the committee, for continuing to pursue this, and the fact that it had been there for a long time wasn't a reason for it to be forgotten, but actually to be brought here today for a debate. I think that, at least, is positive.

Lynne, I think, has spoken clearly about the particular difficulties, and I would concur with her criticism of the inspector's report on that Torfaen application, but at the end of the day, the Minister made the right decision that was consistent with the guidance. And it strikes me that the guidance regime provides for a sensible level of local discretion, and every application and every proposed development will be different, and for Ministers, Government and this Assembly having input to provide guidance on what are the appropriate things to consider strikes me as sensible. Then the planning committee can take into account local situations and, as importantly, local representations. It's clear that opencast mining is rarely popular, and, where it's been brought forward, generally there have been significant objections. I see no reason why a locally elected planning committee would not properly take into account those objections from the people that live in their area, and I think that regime is probably better in supporting localism, which we on these benches strongly support, rather than either making that guidance statutory or having a requirement that, in each and every case, irrespective of the particulars of the local area, above a certain size, you should call in an application.

However, I think the petitioners have largely succeeded in their objectives. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us further when she speaks. But I think the draft Planning Policy Wales 10, where consultation finished in mid May, seems to have quite a significant tightening of the policy, and it's difficult to see how opencast mining gets through this. The Chairman of the committee gave the first sentence; it does continue:

'Should, in wholly exceptional circumstances, proposals be put forward they would clearly need to demonstrate why they are needed in the context of climate change emissions reductions targets and for reasons of national energy security.' 

I think that's interesting and, in some ways, challenging, because it puts the onus of the exception on national and, presumably, UK-wide considerations of climate change targets and energy security. I just wonder, within that, if there is a proposal that's been put by UK Government and a policy—I think it was previously supported, to a degree, by Welsh Government—that coal should be phased out to a certain extent, I think, into the mid to late 2020s, if, in the meantime, someone said, 'Well, that's the policy, that's agreed, but, in terms of energy security, isn't it better this should be produced domestically rather than relying on imports from far afield?' I just wonder what a planning inspector would make of that argument, and we'll look forward to seeing the final guidance that the Minister puts forward in this area.

The Valleys have moved on since the days of coal mining and being perhaps the leading coal mining area in the world, and certainly in terms of the quality of the coal. We've had some opencast mining, but it's been pretty unpopular when put forward. I know there's been a proposal about the Dowlais Top where people had very strong views against it. Also, I think the Rhydycar West area, where there were previously proposals for opencast mining—I think it's very exciting that Marvel are now putting forward this really substantial proposal for a development that I hope, at least, will be more popular than opencast mining, an indoor snow centre, a skate and bike park, an indoor water park, and holiday accommodation and homes, and really very substantial investment has already gone into this and I thank them for their invitation to an information event on Friday.

But I think the issue of call in and local decision making—clearly, in some areas, particular applications are very, very demanding and very difficult and they have a huge amount of detail. For cash-strapped local authorities, particularly small ones, they can be very substantial things. But I think the importance of local democracy is key, and I've put a written question in on this, and I understand the difficulties if it comes to Ministers following an appeal and a planning inspector, that you don't want to prejudge things, but I wonder if Welsh Government could do more to provide planning support or perhaps resources smaller local authorities could draw on for particularly large applications at a central level, while ensuring that that provision of a general resource and expertise didn't prejudice any later appeal that Ministers might have to deal with.

I congratulate the petitioners and the Petitions Committee for finally dealing with this, and look forward also to what the Cabinet Secretary will have to say.

Can I certainly thank the Petitions Committee for bringing this report forward for discussion? I wasn't here when these petitions were originally submitted, but I'm well aware of the battle that my colleague Lynne Neagle has, and I'm facing similar battles now in my constituency with the applications for Nant Llesg, which I'll cover in a moment. So, I have followed the consideration of the petitions with interest, because since I was elected as the AM for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, opencast mining has been a major consideration in the work that I do, and in the concerns of the constituents that I represent. The current opencast coal operation at Ffos-y-fran in Merthyr Tydfil has been of keen interest to my constituents, because the issue has been rumbling on around the restoration of that site. We've also now had the application for Nant Llesg in the upper Rhymney valley, and the petition, the second petition, was submitted around that. A number of my constituents were actually involved in submitting that petition to call in the opencast mining applications, including Terry Evans, who you referred to, David Rowlands, and those people have been closely involved in campaigning vociferously against the Nant Llesg development in the upper Rhymney valley.

But my interest lies in two areas in particular: restoration, which I've already referred to, and future applications. So, as I've already said, during the short time that I've been the Assembly Member, the landscape around Merthyr has changed completely as a result of the Ffos-y-fran development, as the coal has been removed and phased restoration work has taken place. More recently, however, I've been concerned to see court action involving the owners of the Ffos-y-fran operation and the local authority. Now, my position is clear and absolutely unambiguous. There remains an overriding public interest to ensure that, on completion of current opencast operations, the owners must restore the site in compliance with their obligations. That, and that alone, is the overriding public interest in this matter. However, given the ongoing litigation on that—and I believe that we may actually be getting a decision on that court action today—I don't propose to say any more on that. It does, however, lead me on to the more general point of principle, which is that local authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and Welsh Government should ensure suitable financial provision for restoration is implemented, monitored and enforced effectively, the point that I think is set out in conclusion 3 of the committee's report. No community should ever face the uncertainty of being left with a legacy of problems after operators have made millions of pounds from their operations.

And that's why the current review of 'Planning Policy Wales' is also welcome, given the outstanding applications of concern that I've referred to, including Nant Llesg. The Nant Llesg application has already been rejected by the local authority. It doesn't form part of that authority's local development plan. It is opposed almost unanimously by the local community. And yet it is subject to a current appeal. So, I hope, in line with conclusion 2 of the report, that future policy will not only reinforce the Welsh Government's view on the future of fossil fuel extraction, but will respect the right of local communities to determine whether such operations take place on their doorstep. Because while we can't escape the history of mining in our past and in our Valleys communities—indeed, I think we take pride in it—it's also clear, as Mark Reckless said, that these communities have actually moved on from that type of industry, and it's clear that they do not want to see carbon-based and dependent industries resurrected that would both destroy the beautiful landscapes that they now have and damage the environment for future generations. So, at this point in time, Chair, I am reassured by the Cabinet Secretary's evidence to the Petitions Committee and the direction that the Welsh Government is taking on this issue. However, it is vital that, through due process, we see this followed up in the review of planning policy in Wales.

Thank you for this report. I have a longstanding issue, along with other AMs in this area, having chaired Wales Against Opencast Mining here in Wales, so that puts me perhaps in a unique position to talk about the ones in my area, but also knowing quite a lot about opencast in other areas as well. In my own area, for example, we still have Ochr y Waun and East Pit in Cwmllynfell, where we know historically mining has happened illegally, where extensions have taken place against the will of the people. In Kenfig, in Margam, in my region, we still have this huge void of water where there still has not been action with restoration, which is absolutely criminal in my view—that companies are able to get away with this. We see Merthyr, with Ffos-y-fran, we see the issues over the lack of paying from the company. They've now changed their name from Miller Argent to—what can I say—Blackstone, to try and perhaps get away from the bad press that they've had over the year. They should be paying those instalments for the restoration of that land so that the people of that town can get back to normality and not live a life of being worried about their health, continuously making complaints about the way that Miller Argent have worked in that area. The same goes for other operations across south Wales.

Now, while I'm pleased that we have this report, I am probably a little bit cynical as well as to, especially, conclusion 1, that there is so much faith being put into the Welsh Government that, even though they don't welcome it, potentially because of the policy changes, it would

'appear to make further new opencast coal mining developments highly unlikely'.

Well, I'm afraid, with this being policy, and with MTAN still being guidance, I am not entirely convinced that we should be as laid back as what this conclusion seems to reflect. I don't necessarily agree that we need to put MTAN into law, because I feel there are too many exceptions in the MTAN. I think we needed to have totally amended the MTAN and created a new legislative process whereby we defined those exceptions, we defined what it meant would be acceptable or not acceptable, and we made that law. For as long as it's guidance, for as long as it's policy, there will be planning inspectors out there, there will be local authorities out there, who will be able to say that, in these exceptional circumstances, which are quite big—they are wide-reaching, looking at UK trends in the industry—they could go forward in the future. So, I would like to be as positive as you, but, having had the experience that I've had, I don't feel as positive personally, which is why I would like to see the Cabinet Secretary go further. Pinning our hopes on this policy is fine for some, but it's not fine for me, I'm afraid.

In relation to restoration, I do agree with conclusion 3, you'll be pleased to hear, from the Petitions Committee, but, again, we need to be talking about restoration now. There are companies flouting what they should be doing here. They are companies that have money that should be being put into restoration. There are communities that have had this backdrop in their society for years and years and years, and the inaction by these companies should be an embarrassment for the local authority and for the Welsh Government for not acting sooner on this. There are laws already in place to hold these companies to account, and they're putting their money in offshore accounts, they're siphoning off their funds to different parts of the world. So, they can't be accountable, and I think that is absolutely unacceptable.

With regard to call-ins, I attended the conference that was initiated by the Welsh Government a few years ago with regard to competency in relation to local authorities' mineral planning authorities, and I thought it would have been a better idea to have amalgamated mineral planning authorities as opposed to straight away going for call-ins as an option, because, if we can have expertise on a local level, share that expertise, by all means, as opposed to going straight to that call-in process. Now, I know John Cox and others may not agree with me on that, but I think that to go straight to that national decision-making process should not be the first consideration, but we should try and build expertise through the local authority system, where that can be done, and I don't know if that was ever taken on when the portfolio was passed to somebody else within Welsh Government because, at the time, we were hearing from officials that that was something that they would seriously consider. It just doesn't seem to me to fit that the Welsh Government potentially would want to make these decisions when they've said anyway that they don't want to have opencast mining. So, if there is going to be that policy against opencasting, then I think that needs to be permeated through all of our policies. We do have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, we do have sustainable development policies at the heart of Welsh Government, and that means we need to practice what we preach in relation to this and ensure that opencast mining is a thing of the past.

Thanks to the committee Chairman for bring today's debate. A lot of issues have been raised. Bethan has a lot more knowledge than me on the actual opencast practices.

I'd like to address something that Lynne Neagle raised, which was the issue of why it has taken so long to get from a petition in 2013 to actually debating it here in the Chamber. I don't have all the answers. I was a member of the Petitions Committee for the first year of this term and I think that a problem we found on the Petitions Committee, which the Chairman, who was Mike Hedges at the time, attempted to address pretty swiftly, was that we inherited an awful lot of petitions. There are a lot of petitions, and some of them are pursued more seriously than others, and it appeared to us that the problem was that too many of them hadn't been closed down when they were beyond the stage where we could actually meaningfully do anything with them. So, we had so many different petitions that we couldn't see the wood for the trees, and I think that Mike tried to move more swiftly through the petitions, closed down the ones that we couldn't do anything with, and then we could look at the ones where we could actually do something with them. I think you're right that the process needs to be much swifter if the Petitions Committee is to work meaningfully. I think that it does work better now. Obviously, I'm not on it anymore, but I'm sure that it's working in a more streamlined way than it was before. So, hopefully that will address the problem, with petitions actually getting here a lot quicker, because as you say, it's ridiculous that it's taken so long for this issue to be debated.

Onto to the actual opencast issues, yes, clearly there are lots of problems. Bethan, Dawn Bowden and others have raised them. Opencast mining in many ways is worse than underground mining, because it's taking place above ground, so that the dirt and dust spreads into the local atmosphere, and it's also less labour intensive than underground mining, so fewer people are actually reaping any commercial benefits from it. Certainly we have a whole series of Valleys communities in Wales that were built on underground coal mining, but we don't have any communities in Wales that have been built on opencast mining. What we have had over the past 25 years is a lot of communities complaining about opencast mining, protesting about opencast mining and campaigning against opencast mining. Sometimes, those communities haven't had their voices properly heard, and they have been let down by the planning process, both in terms of the actual plans that have been allowed and also issues that have been raised today over restoration of the sites after they've finished working them.

Now, going on to these actual petitions, the two petitions we're looking at, the first one was instigated by Dr Cox, who wants to make the MTAN mandatory in law—so, when planning decisions are being made, it can't just be guidance; it needs to be mandatory. One of the points he's raising is that opencast applications are not supposed to be allowed unless the mine is at least 500m away from the nearest houses. Clearly, in the case of Varteg Hill, that was not the case, and the guideline was not applied. Now, Dr Cox claims that the adjudicating planning inspector at that hearing said that he wasn't minded to go along with MTAN 2 as it was only guidance. We do appear to have a problem with this. If the planning inspectors are not going along with Government guidance, who are they accountable to? Are they giving enough regard to local concerns? In UKIP we have argued throughout this fifth Assembly that the planning system is not very democratic. It is a technocracy in which planning inspectors who are simply unelected bureaucrats are able to ride roughshod over democratic decisions taken by elected councillors. Then we have the councillors being frightened of ruling against controversial planning applications on the advice of their own planning officers, who tell them that the application will surely win on appeal to the planning inspectorate.

We must bring these planning inspectors under some kind of democratic control. We have to try to democratise the planning process and in UKIP we say that the way to do that is to introduce a provision for legally binding local referenda where planning applications are of major local importance and cause a major local anxiety. We continue to make that call. So far we are the only party in Wales calling for that measure. Until we get democratisation of the planning system, we do agree that MTAN 2 should be made mandatory, as Dr Cox suggests, and as his petitioners agree. We also agree with the second petition that all opencast mining applications of a certain size and of a certain age should all be automatically called in by the Welsh planning Minister. The planning system is all wrong and needs to be urgently reformed. We are the only party saying that, but in the meantime we do happily support today's motion. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I call the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. I'd just like to begin by thanking the Petitions Committee, both the current one and the previous one, for its very thorough consideration of opencast coal matters, including the MTAN on coal. As Lynne Neagle alluded to, it has taken place over a number of years, and it has included various evidence sessions. What I think the result is is a very balanced and informative report, and I support the motion.

Before I turn to the conclusions of the report and the questions raised, I just want to, again, raise the issue of placemaking and its focus in the revised ‘Planning Policy Wales’ as the way to create sustainable, thriving communities. This absolutely embraces the principles of the well-being of future generations Act. It puts the well-being goals at the forefront of discussions that effect communities and the built and natural environment. You may ask why placemaking is relevant to today's debate, and I'd like to say why I think it's relevant. It's because it covers all types of development and the coal industry was the foundation for many places in Wales, which I think was the point made by Dawn Bowden, and it did provide very well paid and local employment. But we are moving to a future based on decarbonised technologies, so we must ensure we encourage high-quality developments with a positive impact on the economy, the environment and our communities. We need to thoroughly and robustly think about the many competing issues we have to deal with when considering development, including how best we use our resources. We must ensure we get the right development in the right place. This is the focus in the revised PPW, and it's applicable when thinking about all types of development.

So, if I could just turn specifically to the conclusions in the report. With regard to conclusion 1, I have consulted on a revised policy in ‘Planning Policy Wales’ to make sure it fits with the well-being goals and supports progress in terms of our decarbonisation agenda. As noted in the report, the proposed revised policy in PPW is restrictive and it will discourage applications for future opencast coal sites. If the policy is confirmed, it will apply to all planning applications for opencast developments that are yet to be determined.

Addressing conclusion 2 follows from the policy approach I've taken in PPW. If we discourage new sites for opencast coalworking coming forward in light of our decarbonisation aspirations and drive to secure renewable energy, then it follows that we would not have to consider the use of call-in powers. I would also draw Members' attention to the existing notification direction in place. This requires local planning authorities to refer applications to me where they are minded to grant planning permission for minerals development that is not in accordance with one or more provisions of the development plan. Again, this brings us to the point of an adopted local development plan being essential. It is the LDP that allows for a planning authority to express its vision for an area and to provide a robust basis on which to make decisions.

Restoration is quite rightly raised in conclusion 3, and I cannot overstate the importance of restoration. Even though my proposed policy will restrict opencast coal developments, I've also taken the opportunity to suggest changes to strengthen policies relating to the provision of financial security to secure the restoration. Restoration is vital. Development without effective restoration plans and the means to secure and fund such plans is not and has never been acceptable. I also agree it's important to keep the effectiveness of planning policy under review. This is already done as a matter of course. It is also important for local planning authorities to monitor individual operating sites in a robust way. They should make use of all the mechanisms available to them, including the monitoring fees regime and by establishing liaison committees.

In response to conclusion 4, I can advise that the responses to the consultation on PPW are now being considered by officials and I intend to issue the final revised policy in the autumn. So, finally, I'd just like to thank the committee again for a very thorough and well-considered report, and Assembly Members for their contributions this afternoon.

David Rowlands to reply to the debate.

Diolch—I'm not sure if I should be saying 'Dirprwy Dirprwy Lywydd'. Can I thank all those who’ve made contributions to the debate? There are those, obviously, who have been involved in this for some period of time—both Bethan Sayed and Lynne Neagle have been very involved in these matters. Lynne Neagle mentioned the cost of appeals and the planning inspectorate flying in the face of MTAN regulations. Dr Cox pointed out that the opening words of the inspector in the Varteg appeal were, 'MTAN is only guidance, I make the law here', which sort of says that MTAN is not really as strong as it should be.

Mark Reckless spoke against making MTAN statutory on the basis that powers should be on a local basis. He also made the point that planning applications should take into account energy security for the country and its possible impact on those planning applications. Dawn Bowden mentioned, of course, Ffos-y-fran, as she would do being the Member for Merthyr, and of course she's raised that very, very important matter of restoration—that owners must restore the site after the end of operations. She mentioned there are also applications in for planning for another opencast in her area and how that was absolutely opposed by the local community.

Bethan Sayed spoke about the lack of restoration as well to former operations in her area, and that's an ongoing issue obviously in those areas. She also spoke of restoration in Wales in general. She mentioned the fact that perhaps we should rewrite the MTAN law completely. Maybe that is something we ought to look at. She called for greater expertise to be created in local authorities, thus keeping decisions at a local level, which I think is a very, very important point to make.

Gareth Bennett spoke about the delay of dealing with this petition and mentioned that there was a very large backlog in petitions, which was addressed first of all by Mike Hedges when he was the Chair of the committee, and it's an ongoing process that we're involved in. We are trying to speed up the process, but Lynne Neagle was absolutely right in saying that something that was brought to our attention as long ago as, I think, 2013 probably should have come before this Assembly some time ago.

If I turn to the points made now by the Cabinet Secretary, I think there is a general agreement from the Cabinet Secretary that we have to look very, very carefully at any new planning applications, particularly for opencast mining, and it is gratifying to hear her restate the Welsh Government's absolute commitment to a carbon-free Wales and therefore the likelihood of such developments being very unlikely in the future. 

So, today's debate concludes the committee's consideration of these two petitions. I hope that the process that has been carried out, which I acknowledge again was a lengthy one, has supported the petitioners and others to raise their concerns and proposals. It remains to be seen, of course, what will happen in the future in relation to opencast mining in Wales and whether we will see any new applications. What I can say is that the Assembly's petitions process will remain open for people to raise their concerns on national issues such as planning policy as and when required. Diolch yn fawr. 

Thank you. The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 8 is the Plaid Cymru debate on hydrogen energy and I call on Simon Thomas to move the motion.

Thank you very much, temporary Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m pleased to move the motion, which is based on work commissioned by me using the Assembly’s research funds. It’s being published as a report, ‘The Potential of Hydrogen in the Decarbonisation of Transport in Wales’. If any Member wants a copy, then they are welcome to contact me. I would also like to thank Riversimple, the hydrogen car company in Llandrindod Wells, which staged the launch of this report and gave me an opportunity to be driven around in a hydrogen vehicle—I was joined by many others—and to experience this technology. It’s excellent to see not only that research is happening in Wales but that there is an effort to deliver on that research as a real project, and that that is happening in mid Wales rather than in the usual locations.

The report looks into the possibility of using hydrogen as a fuel in the transport system in Wales, but more broadly taking advantage of the opportunity to develop a hydrogen-based economy too. We look at a number of examples across the world, particularly in western Europe, where hydrogen is currently in use, and how European funds and research funds are used to promote this technology—technology that was born in Wales in the hands of Sir William Grove, but which has the potential for a great future.

Hydrogen is important to us because we need every tool possible in our fight against the dual challenges of climate change and air pollution. I am not arguing that hydrogen outdoes every other method. What I am arguing is that hydrogen has a role and the potential in delivering alongside things such as electric vehicles and more specific things such as reducing the number of journeys taken in the first place.

The main merit of hydrogen is that it does not produce any nitrogen dioxide or toxic matter when it is used, and water is the only emission of a hydrogen machine or cell, and that means that we clean up our towns with clean air and take advantage of opportunities—

Order. I'm sorry, Simon, but we've lost the translation. The testing is working. Has everyone now got the transmission? Thank you. I do apologise, Simon. Do continue. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I was just mentioning water, so I hope you didn’t miss too much there.

The technology is available and I am particularly interested in seeing what role hydrogen has as a fuel in the mass transportation system. So, we’re looking at buses and trains, and opportunities with the Wales and borders franchise coming into the hands of the Welsh Government for us to do something more innovative here in Wales.

What we hope to see here is that the Government, and Wales itself becomes a nation that is in the vanguard and leads in developing the hydrogen industry. It is something that is swiftly expanding across the world. It is something that is very much developing in nations that are interested in research and new methods. There is a hydrogen community at a global level where information is shared, and I do think that there is an opportunity for us as a nation that is flexible and is of the right size, as it were, with an innovative Government, to lead on many of these areas. I very much hope—I would be delighted, in fact—if the Welsh Government were able to bring together some sort of summit of all of these organisations to demonstrate that we do want to lead the way.

We believe that an investment in the hydrogen economy is something that could go along with active travel, clean air zones, with electric vehicles. Hydrogen doesn’t outdo these, of course, as I said; it is one of the measures to tackle air pollution and climate change.

There are numerous nations now that are experimenting with these methods. There are hydrogen buses in places like Aberdeen and Birmingham. London is investing in hydrogen buses, and I think we only have three electric buses throughout the whole of Wales, and they aren’t on the roads as of yet, so we are falling behind. Germany may have been knocked out of the World Cup today but they are investing in hydrogen trains, with Austria, Ontario and China also looking into this. Costa Rica is a nation looking to invest in hydrogen trains. There’s an excellent opportunity for us to develop there.

I noted from the schedule to the supplementary budget that £5 million has been allocated by the Cabinet Secretary for developments that will come as a result of not proceeding with proposals in Blaenau Gwent on the Circuit of Wales, and that they are now looking into possibilities of investing in low-carbon technologies in Blaenau Gwent. It would be wonderful to see if that could also be used for developing the hydrogen economy. We can lead the way here. I saw just last week that the Scottish Government had supported a hydrogen ship to be built in Scotland. Those are the opportunities available to us, and I very much hope, despite the slightly unambitious amendments of the Government, that we can take full advantage of this technology and lead the world. 

Thank you. I have selected three amendments to the motion, and I call on Russell George to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to move the amendment in the name of Paul Davies, and in doing so very much welcome this debate and indicate our support for the objectives contained within the Plaid motion. I hope that our amendments will be supported because, as we believe, of course, they strengthen the motion further.

We must not forget that the Welsh Development Agency stated in 2005, 13 years ago, that it wished to develop a micro-economy in south Wales based on hydro technology. The then Minister for development and transport, Andrew Davies, envisaged that there would be hydrogen fuelling stations, zero-emission integrated transport networks, hydrogen-powered water taxis and hubs where heavy goods vehicles can transfer goods onto electric vehicles for delivery. All this, at the time, was envisaged within 10 years, and as Jenny Rathbone, actually, rightly said in the Chamber last October, none of this has materialised, and while it's regrettable, I think, perhaps, this indicates that the Welsh Government's commitment to decarbonisation of the Welsh transport system is somewhat overstated, and that's why I raise this, because that's why I'd suggest we won't be supporting the Government's amendments.

I read Simon Thomas's paper with great interest—I learnt a lot. I just thought it was a very good way to use the Assembly's research funds. It is a really good document, and it certainly is—. It's right that we debate this kind of item in opposition time, as we are today.

Now, both electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells are cleaner than carbon fuels and have the potential to deliver a host of benefits including reduced carbon emissions and low-running costs and safety improvements, but to ensure, of course, Wales is leading the way in this regard, to adapt to this new technology and to diversify our energy portfolio, of course improvements to Wales's grid infrastructure will be required, otherwise the plans that are outlined in Simon Thomas's report will never come to reality.

It's my understanding that the viability of green hydrogen fuel generation comes from surplus electricity generation, and as the grid develops, the electricity storage is incorporated into the grid's model, and there would be less, of course, surplus electricity, as it would now be stored by distribution system operators for later distribution. That's what I've understood, but I'm quite happy to be corrected by Simon Thomas if I've not got that right.

Could the Member give way?

Absolutely, yes. 

I don't wish to correct him in that sense—I think he's broadly correct—but what I think he misses, and that's why I'm not completely content with his amendment, which I understand is trying to be a constructive amendment—. I think he misses the opportunity in Wales in particular, where we do produce surplus renewable electricity—we would have certainly had it with the tidal lagoon, but also many of our windfarms are producing electricity at a time when it's not actually being used, and there is a potential for hydrogen to stand in the gap. It's actually more effective as a storage method for energy than storing energy as electricity because our battery technology is not as efficient as our hydrogen technology.

Thank you, Simon Thomas. This is something new I'm exploring myself, so I'm happy for that point.

I can see I've just about run out of time, but I think one issue that I do think needs to be resolved is that tension as well between what role hydrogen plays versus the need for electric vehicles, or electric generation as well, because there are limitations that exist there. So, I think it is right that we should also be progressing, of course, electric vehicle charging points as well. But what I'm trying to grasp with is that balance between the two and where they sit, and that's what I hope to get out of this debate this afternoon, and I'm looking forward to the Cabinet Secretary's response and other Members' contributions and your conclusions as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport to move formally amendment 2, tabled in the name of Julie James?

Formally. 

Thank you. Can I call on Michelle Brown now to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Caroline Jones? Michelle. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Hydrogen energy is an exciting and very interesting technology that can be used to create energy to power cars, HGVs, shipping, and also to heat homes. So, I'm very, very pleased to be able to support Plaid's motion today.

Provided this hydrogen itself is sourced from renewable energies, it provides a solution to the pollution that damages health and causes multiple deaths each year in this country. However, as I've pointed out before, unless the pollution created by shipping is addressed, we will never solve the world's pollution problem. But there is hope because of hydrogen. The Race for Water concept ship uses solar power and a hydrogen stack to extend its range when it's away from the equator. Hydrogen engines are also being developed for the use in HGVs as well. Riversimple's approach to designing the cars around the power cell is not only incredibly logical, it's resulted in a car that's a viable prospect with few of the drawbacks of those electric and hybrid cars that are somewhat counterproductive, being a combination of fossil fuel and heavy batteries.

The innovation and technological ability of that home-grown company are to be commended, and they're part of a proud tradition of British engineers who split the atom and gave the world the computer. So, let's not make the same mistake that previous generations have, who saw inventions brought into being by British people only to see companies in other countries make a fortune out of them.

A key point was raised yesterday in First Minister's questions, when it was said that we should we be careful about putting all of our eggs in the electrical vehicle basket. I fully agree that we should have a mixed source of energy production. We don't want to find ourselves beholden to a cartel in the way that we currently are with petrol and diesel, and a suitable energy mix will prevent that.

Electrical vehicles powered by battery are not without damage to the environment, as I've commented on here in the past. The electricity has to be generated, and in the main we're still doing that by use of fossil fuels. The materials for the massive batteries required also need to be mined and processed—a process that's potentially damaging to the environment and human health. Disposal of those batteries is also highly problematic. It's positive from the point of view that electric vehicles don't produce toxic emissions, but under our current power mix, these emissions have simply been shifted elsewhere—they're still going into the atmosphere. Hydrogen-fuelled vehicles don't pose that Hobson's choice.

Turning to our amendment, we recognise that widespread introduction of hydrogen-powered vehicles will require an infrastructure that costs money to install. That applied, of course, to the introduction of the horse-drawn carriage in the first place. While once we had staging posts for horse-drawn transport, complete with fodder and stabling, an entire infrastructure had to be created to store, transport and refine, or to produce petrol, diesel and heating oil.

Petrol stations are already equipped to deal with combustible fuel, and whilst it's true they would require adaptation to accommodate hydrogen, the task isn't as great as that posed before, at the start of the fossil-fuel vehicle era. I'm sure any key events such as that mentioned in the motion would produce a range of ideas, and I'm fully supportive of the motion from that point of view. But I would ask that we keep the options being considered realistically affordable.

We need to ensure that there's a good return on investment, and that the risks of creating the necessary infrastructure, and research and development, and then promotion of the technology is shared fairly between the companies that will profit from it, the Government, and ultimately, the taxpayer.

We'll also need buy-in from the public, but that's not going to happen if they fear they're going to be hit with another costly green tax. So, reassurance from Government on that score, I think, would be greatly appreciated. And to that end, I urge you to back UKIP's amendment. Thank you.

I was feeling very mischievous a moment ago thinking what kind of emergency vote we could call because Plaid Cymru are in the majority here at the moment in the Chamber. [Laughter.]

I’m pleased to be able to take part very briefly in this debate, and I congratulate Simon on the work that he’s done in preparing this report that looks at the potential of hydrogen for Wales, and that word ‘potential’ is the important one for me here, because like so many new technologies, and ways of using those technologies, we’re starting in terms of seeing how far we can push those boundaries.

We need every tool in several battles that we currently have—the battle against climate change, and evidently hydrogen does offer something in that area. We need every tool in the battle to ensure that the air is cleaner around us, and hydrogen, once again, does offer something there. I think that we also need every tool when it comes to looking at the economic potential for Wales. In so many different areas, Wales is falling behind, in environmental areas too. Look at Ireland—with the Enterprise and Business Committee in the last Assembly, I was very jealous of the work that had been done on the 'Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth' report, looking at how to get the best out of marine energy and the economic benefit and environmental benefit that would come from that.

In the work that I’m trying to do on electric cars at present, I regret the fact that we are falling behind, where the rest of Britain is developing and investing a lot more in charging points and so forth for electric vehicles, where we were, a few years ago in Wales, talking of the possibility, as a small, flexible country, of being leaders in creating charging networks. At present, we only want to be part of the game. Where Wales has one charging point funded from the public purse for every 100,000 people, Scotland has one charging point for every 7,000 people. That’s the magnitude of the challenge before us, and I’m looking forward to going to Dundee before long, which is a city that’s doing amazing work in this area.

Yes, there are some people who evangelise about electric vehicles who turn up their noses at the possibility of developing hydrogen technology for cars. My argument then is that we need to look at every way of trying to ensure that we turn our modes of transport into very low-emission approaches, or those with no emissions at all. Certainly, in terms of commercial vehicles, buses and lorries, I think hydrogen energy now—not just in the future—offers potential. So, the appeal today is: please support this motion and let us realise that there is work being developed here in Wales that has the potential to create the kind of world and Wales that we are looking for.

Thank you very much. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this important subject today, and I'd like to thank Simon Thomas for bringing forward this report. I'd also like to reiterate what Russell George said; I think this is an exemplar use of research budgets. This is a superb research report and I welcome it very much. I think it's fair to say that the future, in many ways, does belong to those who are open, rather than closed; those who are open to new ideas; those who are open to challenge; those who are open to new technology; and, crucially, those who are open to change.

I think, as Simon said, we need to look at hydrogen's role in decarbonising transport within the wider and integrated context of the role that it has to play in decarbonising our entire economy and our communities under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. Taking forward the commitments under the environment Act, we'll be launching a consultation next month on our decarbonisation pathways to 2030 and beyond, and we'll be seeking views on those actions that should be priorities for Wales.

As only 5 per cent of hydrogen is currently green, we need to ensure that, in moving to hydrogen, we do not inadvertently restrict our ability to decarbonise, and I think this is something that everybody recognises. So, in order to do this, the Welsh Government is considering how we could produce hydrogen using excess renewable generation alongside carbon capture utilisation and storage to decarbonise transport, alongside heat, industry and power.

We are outcome specific in our commitment to moving to a decarbonised transport sector in Wales. However, we remain technology neutral on the role of different fuels and technologies in achieving this aim, including the role of hydrogen. The current trend is towards hybrid and electric vehicles, but there is a growing interest in hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cell propulsion, which we are already supporting.

The £2 million support for Riversimple is indicative of our support for the shift to a low-carbon economy and transport sector. We funded this aspirational and inspirational project at a time when many considered it highly unlikely to become a viable enterprise, and we're now helping Monmouthshire County Council to explore opportunities to build on the hydrogen Riversimple trial taking place in their area in terms of sustainable fuels and smarter mobility. It's an extremely exciting piece of work, particularly given that it's in a rural environment. Our Sêr Cymru programme is funding research at Swansea University into hydrogen fuel for vehicles and at Cardiff University, who are researching technology for green hydrogen generation.

Our £5 billion investment in the new rail service for Wales includes a major commitment to decarbonisation. We explored fully the option of hydrogen technology with bidders for the Wales and borders rail service during the procurement exercise, and we will continue to look for innovation on the network in the future. Our aim, as outlined in—[Interruption.] Yes, of course, yes.

Just on that point, I see the welcome announcement this week of a test facility for rail, also in south Wales, quite close, as it happens, to Baglan and to sources of hydrogen. Would that be a potential area where this could be explored?

It could be. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. It adds to the attractiveness of the facility. As I said in the statement regarding what was called within the civil service and my office 'Project Hornby', but will be a global centre of research excellence, this was demand-led by the industry and, as you're aware, there are huge, huge sums of money being set aside for the development of more advanced hydrogen-driven trains, and I'm confident that, as a test facility, we could be seeing those products, those trains, that rolling stock, tested in Wales.

Our aim is, as outlined by the economic action plan, a carbon-zero bus and taxi service and sectors within 10 years, and we're currently scoping potential pathways for that to happen. Hydrogen could have a role to play—there is no doubt about it—especially in the bus sector, but hydrogen buses currently attract a considerably higher cost premium compared to other options. That, of course, will reduce over time as hydrogen buses are mainstreamed into the network.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we will continue to support the transport sector in developing and implementing new technologies, reflecting their role in our decarbonisation pathways, and the opportunities they represent for a successful future economy in supporting our wider well-being goals. I think our investment in Tech Valleys will encourage this, as will our investment in businesses such as Riversimple, and in facilities such as the rail test facility that's going to be constructed on the Neath Port Talbot and Powys border.

In terms of grid capacity, the point that was raised by Russell George, I would agree that there is a very, very urgent need for further investment to strengthen capacity on the grid, but I am pleased that National Grid are opening a centre of excellence and research in Wales.

So, thanks again for the opportunity to debate this important matter today, and to Simon Thomas in particular for saving me from the need to watch Match of the Day later, having disclosed the outcome of the German match in the world cup.

Thank you. Can I call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate?

Thank you. Can I thank everyone who took part in this debate? It was a short debate to note the publication of the report, but I can promise you I'll bore you about hydrogen for some time to come, and I've got a few enthusiasts around as well, so that's good to see.

This is a technology that I think does a lot to tick a lot of boxes that we're interested in in Wales. It's innovative. It happened to be designed here, which adds to the romance; it doesn't matter really, but it does add to it. It's something that decarbonises our transport sector and has potential in other areas as well. I just want to say at the outset that I very much—although I won't necessarily support all the amendments—do understand the spirit in which those amendments have been made: they're constructive, and we're having a debate that's trying to put together some ideas around the potential for hydrogen.

The key thing is that we need green hydrogen on the whole. There is some brown hydrogen as a by-product that can continue to be part of the mix, I think, but producing hydrogen directly from fossil fuel makes no sense whatsoever. But using what was described, actually, by Alan Whitehead, who speaks for the Labour Party in the UK, as he described it in the New Statesman, 

'the emergence of a large load of variable power',

that is renewables of course,

'onto the system it may be that this "surplus" electricity is becoming available'

for the production of hydrogen. As I quoted back to Russell in his reasonable questions, it now seems that storing surplus electricity as hydrogen is as cost-effective as—in fact, some of the experts and the users of this say it's more cost-effective than—storing it as electricity. And we also then avoid some of the costs of batteries that Michelle Brown mentioned, and I mean environmental costs as well as the actual cost. So, there is huge potential there.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this debate, and we did focus on transport, but there is a role for hydrogen in heat. Those of us who remember town gas—not me, but if you do remember town gas—town gas was about 40 per cent hydrogen. There's still a town gas office in Aberystwyth, actually. It's got Aberystwyth Gas Company above it. We used to produce town gas from coal. We used to compress coal and burn it to produce hydrogen. That was our gas system. Our current gas system—gas mains—doesn't like more than a tiny percentage of hydrogen in it, but we need to work with the gas providers to see whether we can pump a little more hydrogen into the gas system because it then has—. We produce it for transport, we can produce it for heat, we can produce it then to decarbonise wider in the economy.

Can I finally say that the comments of the Cabinet Secretary were much more upbeat than, I think, the amendment from the Government? So, I'm going to rely on his comments, not the amendment, and I'm going to hope that that means that we can have a real debate, going forward in the Assembly, and can indeed work to put Wales at—. Albeit technology-neutral, there are huge opportunities here. People are investing already, and I want to see Wales being part of that, and leading on that. I'll take his comments, rather than the amendment, as a sign of hope ahead.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. Therefore, we vote on this item at voting time.

Item 9 on the agenda this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate on head and neck cancers, and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move that motion.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'm pleased to open this debate today on expanding the use of the human papilloma virus vaccine, which was the first to be developed to be used against cancer. In anyone's book, that is a major development. To a certain extent, of course, we are taking advantage of that major development because it is offered to young women at the moment and to men who have sex with men. But we're not yet providing this vaccination to adolescent boys, despite the clear evidence of the effectiveness of this vaccine in preventing serious cancers, including head and neck cancers. Using this vaccine more broadly would also enhance the protection for women against cervical cancer.

I'll turn immediately to the Government amendment, which more or less says that they will reject the findings of Cancer Research UK and every oncologist in the country, as far as I can see, and will wait for the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommendations instead. But I have no doubt, if truth be told, what that recommendation will be, which poses the question: why wait? But I do think that it is not only fair but also important to return to the earlier JCVI recommendation not to roll out this vaccination more broadly, and why they made that recommendation, because it does raise some fundamental questions, I think. Are the methods that we currently have of analysing cost-effectiveness—nobody doubts the clinical effectiveness—are those methods truly appropriate for this age?

The previous rationale of the JCVI for not expanding this programme was that they believed that the benefits of vaccination would be expanded to boys in any case, as vaccinating many young women would provide herd immunity for boys too. But we believe that this conclusion is deficient for many reasons, and I will go through them. It is based on the assumption that a very high level of girls would receive the vaccination—something that unfortunately isn't the case because of the huge variations between various groups, and it is something that could be put at risk by one scare story about a vaccination, as we do see appearing in the press from time to time. It assumes that the responsibility for providing herd immunity and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases should be placed on the shoulders of girls and women. Why not argue, for example, that a boys-only vaccination programme would be sufficient in providing this defence to girls and women? Thirdly, there are far too many women and girls, as I was saying, that haven't been vaccinated and can transfer the virus to boys and men who would have been protected if they had been vaccinated themselves. Fourthly, the view of the JCVI was based, it appears, on heteronormative presumptions, namely that every man is heterosexual. I think this is recognised partially by the decision taken in due time to extend vaccination to MSM. That was a decision taken separately. It is concerning and it could also be dangerous only to provide vaccinations to men who are willing to reveal their sexuality, and by assuming that this isn't a problem the JCVI shows the need for greater equality training in the health sector.

Vaccinating boys, as I say, would provide higher levels of herd immunity among women and girls, so there would be benefits to women and girls from the vaccination of boys. The evidence of efficiency in preventing other cancers has also been strengthened since the original analysis, and it's important to note that, and it's likely to become even stronger over time. If the vaccine wasn't already in use, then I think the conclusions of the JCVI on introducing a mass programme across the board for girls and boys would be different. If it were to be introduced anew now, then I'm sure that it would be provided universally.

Finally, in considering the outcome of the cost-efficiency evaluation, I believe that there is a grave underestimation of the cost-efficiency of introducing a vaccination for boys. The reason for that is that I believe that the benefit doesn't come until much, much further down the line. The cost is paid now, of course, in providing the vaccination, but it's possible that the cancer won't be prevented for 50 years. Now, I fear that the processes of measuring cost-efficiency are failing to deal with that kind of delay in outcomes, and I think the JCVI itself notes these outcomes and the fact that, in a way, their hands are tied, because in their interim analysis they say this:

'The Committee recognises arguments made by stakeholders on the issue of equality of access and that there are additional clinical benefits that could be achieved in males with a gender neutral programme. The Committee therefore wishes to refer the issue of equality of access to the Department of Health for consideration.'

In other words, Cabinet Secretary, they want you to make the decision. I think the idea that this could be too expensive just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The estimated cost of extending the programme to boys is around £0.5 million a year. We would only need to prevent seven or eight cases of cancer each year, which the introduction of this vaccine most certainly would, to recoup this cost. In fact, the only reason the cost-effectiveness argument has been used is based on the idea that we can get the benefits of the vaccine on the cheap through assuming this herd immunity based on a girls-only programme. As I hope I've outlined, this is flawed, and I think the Government should change its mind now.

Thank you. I have selected the amendment to the motion. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James?

Formally.

Thank you. Angela Burns.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank Members of Plaid Cymru for bringing forward this debate, which we will be supporting more than wholeheartedly, because in today's NHS we are constantly talking about the need to prevent rather than cure and isn't prevention so much easier, and, if we can go out and capture people who might have the misfortune to develop a cancer of this type, then let's try and stop it, and let's try and stop it now.

It doesn't cost, as Rhun ap Iorwerth said, too much money when you start looking at what the effects of this would be further on down the line. Let's not just think about the individual and what they may go through, but actually the cost in terms of employment, the cost in terms of all the state support, and the cost in terms of the impact on their lives and the lives of their families. So, I think that we must adhere to this prevention agenda, and it does tie in so very clearly with the way the Government says they wish the direction of travel to go. We're asking people to take responsibility, to step up to the plate, and we're saying, 'Get thinner, stop smoking, do more exercise', and here's something that we could quite easily do that would help eradicate just some of those opportunities that are out there for somebody to develop what is the most unpleasant of conditions.

We're not asking the Welsh Government to do something that's never been done before. Let's be really clear: teenage males get this in a number of countries around the world, New Zealand since 2008—they really were trailblazers—Austria, Croatia, large swathes of Canada—about four of the big provinces of Canada—and the lessons that they've learnt is that the prices of this injection will drop with the economies of scale. So, again, it's very hard to look at that and refute the whole desire to do it. 

But, above all, we keep saying how much we rely on our clinicians, how much, we say, that we need our clinicians to make the best decisions for us, and our clinicians have been very, very clear, and I'd like to reference one of them, in fact, Dr Evans. She is a consultant clinical oncologist at Velindre hospital in Cardiff, and she has said—I'm not even going to say what the mass name is for all of these cancers, I'm not sure that I could pronounce it, but, essentially, head, neck, tonsils, tongue and throat cancers have trebled in Wales over the past 15 years, and she says there is a direct link between these cancers and HPV. So, here's a clinician, very well respected, world renowned, and she led a campaign—quite a strong campaign, because we supported her, the Welsh Conservatives—in August of last year when she was really coming to the table and saying, 'We ought to look at this'. So, again, Cabinet Secretary, the parliamentary review, the vision for health, clinician led, clinician decisions—clinicians are saying we really ought to look at this, and I think that you should. 

I'm not entirely clear how Rhun ap Iorwerth got the funding numbers, because I have to tell you in all honesty that my numbers are significantly higher than yours, but I'm quite prepared to say that my numbers could well be out—but I did also find a solution. It'll be wildly unpopular, I know, so try not to hiss too much, but analysis of NHS Wales data estimates that, if paracetamol, aspirin, ibuprofen and co-codamol were removed from the Welsh NHS list of free medicines to those who are not destitute or vulnerable or have chronic conditions, there would be a saving of some £16 million annually. When I can go into very large supermarkets—I'd better not name them—and buy a packet of ibuprofen for 32p, and then other people can have a life-saving treatment—. Because there isn't money growing on trees, so I do have some sympathy, because I think it's going to cost more than £0.5 million. If we looked at subsidising the vaccination of Wales's 36,000 12 to 13-year-old boys, then that would cost—at a high street cost of some £300, which is what a very famous, large chemist is currently charging, that would, at the most, cost the NHS an estimated £11 million.

So, I would say to you, Cabinet Secretary, prevention is better than cure. We're trying to have a public health message, we're trying to prevent people from getting sick, so that the long-term cost to both the NHS itself, to the state in general, to employment, and the awful, awful pressure it brings about on the individual and on families—if we can start eradicating all of that, then there's every reason in the world why we should just go ahead, listen to the clinicians, and do this. And you can afford it by actually asking someone like me, who earns the money I do, to pay 32p for my ibuprofen, whilst you're still protecting the vulnerable and the poor.

I'd like to thank Plaid Cymru for proposing the motion before us today.

Human papillomavirus, or the easier to pronounce name HPV, is the most widespread sexually transmitted virus on the planet. It is believed four out of every five people will contract one of the 100 or so types of the virus at some point in their lives. In the vast majority of cases, the men and women infected show no outward symptoms and never know that they've contracted the virus in the first place. However, HPV infection is known to be responsible for nearly 2 per cent of all cancers in the UK. It is because of this close association with certain types of cancer—cervical cancer in particular, where it is believed that 99.7 per cent of cervical cancer is caused by HPV infection—that the decision was taken to vaccinate all girls between the ages of 12 and 18. At the time, it was considered too costly to vaccinate boys in order to combat cervical cancer. However, evidence has emerged linking type 16 and type 18 HPV to anal, penile, and some head and neck cancers.

This evidence is reaffirmed by the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation’s interim statement on extending HPV vaccination to adolescent boys. The JCVI allude to the strengthening evidence on the association between HPV and non-cervical cancers. However, the JCVI are minded to rule against the routine immunisation of young men because the modelling they used shows that it is not cost-effective. But how can it be cost-effective to not immunise teenage boys? We are looking at a few hundred pounds per teenage boy vaccinated, against the cost of those boys or the girls they come into sexual contact with developing cancer in the future.

Even if we were to ignore the benefits to the boys of immunising against certain head and neck cancers and certain anal and penile cancers, we can’t ignore the benefits in increasing protection against cervical cancer. The models used in developing the HPV vaccination programme for girls assumed uptake rates of over 80 per cent. Evidence obtained by Cancer Research UK shows that, in some local authority areas, uptake is as low as 44 per cent. This will not offer herd protection, and therefore we need to immunise adolescent boys, as well as girls, if we are able to have any chance of combating cervical cancer.

This is also an equality issue: why is it okay to expose young men to a virus that could lead to them developing head or neck cancer when there is a proven and effective vaccine, just because it’s not as cost-effective as it is in young women?

I urge Members to support Plaid Cymru’s motion today and to reject the Welsh Government’s amendment. The JCVI made it clear a year ago that they wouldn’t support extending the vaccine to adolescent males on cost grounds. Unless they have listened and updated their modelling, they are unlikely to change that view. We need to act now, not wait another few years for the policies to catch up with the evidence. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr. 

I'm pleased to take part in this debate. About immunisation in the first place, vaccination, there is a remarkable success story here of medical research, because for decades now we've thought immunisation is only really any good in preventing infection. Now, in the last few years, we've found a vaccination that stops cancer. It's an amazing step change, and when I first heard that news about 15 years ago or more—it really has a tremendous effect on how, as a doctor, you think of the world. We think of immunisation just stopping infection; you're stopping that annual slaughter of diphtheria and tetanus and stuff that filled our old cemeteries and old chapels in Wales, and now, all of a sudden, you immunise and you can stop cancer. It's amazing. It really is a step change, and sometimes we forget that we ought to marvel at certain things that we've discovered. 

Obviously, human papillomavirus is the virus in question here. It's sexually transmitted and, obviously, this vaccine stops, obviously, the infection, but it stops the cancers developing. It is really, really amazing, particularly in terms of we're on about the cost-benefit analysis, and, in boys, in men, it's about preventing head and neck cancers. These are significant cancers with huge cost implications in terms of fairly horrific, disfiguring surgery, because it usually presents late: you have a lump on the side of your throat, behind your tongue, in all sorts of crevices that we can't see until there's a late presentation. There's a horrendous, huge cost to each individual presentation of a head and neck cancer that has to be brought into this formula of how we judge whether something is cost-effective or not: if they've had their HPV vaccine, they will not be developing that head and neck cancer. Because the overwhelming rise in—. The figures I've got here, there's been a 63 per cent increase in the last decade in oral and oropharyngeal cancers in men in Wales. Those are the figures, and that rise is associated with the rise in HPV infection. So, we can do something about that by vaccinating the boys tomorrow. 

This is the prevention agenda supreme, as Angela Burns pointed out. The girls are already getting vaccinated. The boys could be as well. Cervical cancer faces eradication. It's amazing, isn't it? You're talking about cervical cancer in women facing eradication by this vaccination programme, and we should be offering the same to young men. As they grow older, we could sort out head and neck cancer, which is a horrific, destructive cancer, with huge cost implications that have obviously not been factored into all the cost analysis. So, here's a vaccine that prevents cancer in women, here's a vaccine that international experience shows prevents cancer in men as well. So, girls have it; boys should have it too. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank Members for their views on this important issue that we've discussed before and I hope we can discuss again in the future once a decision is made. The United Kingdom's independent expert panel on immunisation matters that we've heard about today—the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—gave further consideration to extending HPV vaccination to boys at its latest meeting on 6 June. Reports on the discussion at that meeting have appeared in some parts of the media, but the JCVI has yet to publish a statement giving its final conclusions and advice. I expect that to be available very shortly, and certainly before the end of July. So, the advice is imminent.

Now, I can't, despite the urging of Members today, pre-empt what that statement will say, but I do want to respond to some of today's discussion. As has been said, on the advice of the JCVI HPV vaccination has been routinely offered to adolescent girls since 2008, and a recent study by Public Health England showed that, since its introduction, the number of young women infected with HPV has fallen dramatically by up to 86 per cent between 2010 and 2016. Protection is expected to be long term, and eventually saving hundreds of lives a year. As a number of Members have said today, this is about saving lives. The good news is that the HPV vaccination in girls does provide some indirect protection for boys, and I know that Rhun ap Iorwerth's commented on this, and in particular he commented on vaccination rates. Actually, vaccination rates in Wales are relatively high. The last figures were 83 per cent and improving, with 89 per cent in Cwm Taf and 79 per cent in Powys. So, there is always more to do. But, in April 2017, again in response to the JCVI's advice, we introduced a targeted programme for men who have sex with men, and that was done in a prompt manner, acting on the updated advice from the JCVI.

Notwithstanding those positive developments, I note from today's debate and previous correspondence from others, including a range of clinicians in a number of different spheres, that concerns remain about the issues of equality of access to HPV immunisation and the reliance of herd immunity rather than offering direct protection to men and boys. I am aware that these concerns were raised with the JCVI by a number of sources as part of the consultation following the publication of its interim statement last year. Now, their review since then has taken longer than anyone of us would have wanted, but it is now reaching a conclusion, as I referred to in my earlier remarks. That review looked at a number of complex issues that the JCVI itself is best placed to assess, not least in respect of cost-effectiveness, albeit there will be a decision for me to make at the end of it. I don't think we should shy away from cost-effectiveness being important because we need to fairly, consistency and robustly evaluate the potential benefits of national programmes. We need to deliver value for money and the greatest health benefit possible to the population.

I do disagree with Angela Burns's point about how easy it could be to remove four or five named items from the prescription list. I don't think you could avoid reintroducing an expensive means test to do so, and I don't think it either is easy, as was suggested, or, indeed, that you would deliver the cost savings that she refers to, and, of course, there are differences of principles about our continued free prescriptions policy.

But I just want to make this clear because I know a number of people referred to evidence and the views of other campaign groups and interest groups in this area who all want to see positive change, but I just don't think you can put aside the JCVI as the authoritative body that the whole of the NHS UK family relies upon to help make evidence-led choices on immunisation and vaccination. Once their statement is available in the very near future, I will, of course, listen to the advice carefully before deciding how best to proceed in Wales. However, I do want to assure Members that I will prioritise consideration of that advice and I will then make a decision for which I will be accountable, but I will do so in a timely manner, certainly without any lengthy delay.

Thank you. Can I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate?

Very, very briefly, thanks to everybody, including the Cabinet Secretary, for your support for pressing ahead with this at some point. What I can't understand, quite, is why not crack on with it now?

To answer your question, Angela Burns, about the cost, we put in some freedom of information requests on costings. The £0.5 million was based on 5 per cent of the cost of the immunisation programme for girls in England. We come to the £0.5 million, and we have no reason to believe it would cost differently for boys, and that figure has been corroborated through other means as well. So, if—[Interruption.] Yes—please.

Just to clarify, as we're swapping numbers, we looked at the NHS census data— the numbers of young men, or boys, in Wales today—and if we were to go out and start from ground zero and give them all that very essential injection, or two injections, and then move forward from there.

Thank you. What's important here is that we agree that this is bound to be cost-effective because of the serious illnesses, the cancers that we could be avoiding by the introduction of this. As I say, the first immunisation, the first vaccine for cancer. 

This is the third issue today, Cabinet Secretary, that I've brought up here in the Assembly on something that could be introduced, that could be rolled out further, that is clinically proven, that we believe is cost-effective, that is somehow being held back. I raised the issue of the eight-year fight for the introduction of radiofrequency ablation treatment for Barrett’s oesophagus, and I appreciated, again, your positive response and hopefully we'll get some movement on that.

I raised once again the question of mpMRI scans that allows the diagnosis of prostate cancers without biopsy—something that we're awaiting NICE approval for, even though England and Scotland are also awaiting NICE approval, but they're just doing it. So, in all these cases, I believe clinical evidence is clear. Here we have something that will save the lives, no, not of people today, but 50 years down the line—[Interruption.] I would love to, but I can't. So, please support this and show that we want people in Wales, be they male or female, to get the best possible chances in life, and HPV has given that opportunity. It's just a matter of rolling it out.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we will vote on this item at voting time.

We have reached voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I am going to proceed directly to the first vote. The first vote this afternoon, then, is on the debate on the no named day motion 6753—the Secretary of State for Wales. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion nine, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We now move to vote on amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected, and I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 30, one abstention, 18 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed. Amendment 2 is deselected.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 31, no abstentions, 18 against. Therefore, the amended motion is agreed.

We move to vote on the Plaid Cymru debate on hydrogen energy. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If the proposal is not agreed, we vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 10, two abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We move to vote on the amendments. I call for a vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 16, no abstentions, 32 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 25, no abstentions, 24 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed. 

I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 15, no abstentions, 33 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed. 

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended.  

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 26, no abstentions, 23 against. Therefore, the amended motion is agreed.

We now move to vote on the Plaid Cymru debate on head and neck cancers. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Again, if the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 23, one abstention, 25 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed. 

We now move to vote on the amendments, and I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 27, no abstentions, 22 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed. 

I call for a vote on the motion as amended. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 35, 13 abstentions, none against. Therefore, the motion is agreed. 

We now move to the short debate. If Members are leaving the Chamber, please do so quietly and quickly.

We move to the short debate and I call on Neil Hamilton to speak on the topic he has chosen. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is an important topic and I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for detained here this afternoon on a nice, sunny day. She and I have many political disagreements, but no-one can deny the spirit and commitment that she brings to her office as Cabinet Secretary for Education, and I certainly pay tribute to all that she has achieved in the years that she's been in this Assembly on her favourite topic, and I mean that as a genuine compliment. 

I've raised this issue once before at First Minister's questions and I've been pilloried by some for, as it appears, attempting to avoid discussion of controversial current affairs topics in schools, or trying to silence children. This is no part of my intention at all. I'm very much in favour of engaging young people in political discussion, but this must be done on an informed and balanced basis. One of the things that I was concerned about in relation to the Welsh baccalaureate is the global citizenship challenge and the way in which the curriculum appears to be devised, and the rather tendentious way in which this has been designed. 

Now, of course controversial topics are bound to be discussed in schools and, as I say, it is right that they should be, but when we deal with issues that are headlined, such as cultural diversity, fair trade, future energy, inequality, poverty, famine, migration, consumerism, and so on, these are all highly political topics, and in this place obviously we have vigorous debates about them. I'm not sure that we have vigorous debates in schools in quite the same way. Now, I'm not saying that schools are teaching these courses deliberately as political propaganda, but I am concerned that there isn't a sufficient diversity of view to make this a more balanced and open debate, and that's why I've decided to raise this this afternoon.

I'd like to give some examples. In a document called 'Skills Knowledge', which is produced—unfortunately I've forgotten my glasses and I can't read the top—. Sorry, here we are; they have come to my rescue. There we go—produced by the Welsh bac, it says, 'What is propaganda? Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively, perhaps by omission, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.'

Now, there is one item in this course called 'ethnocentrism': 'Ethnocentrism is where a person sees a grouping which they identify with to be superior to other groupings.' It goes on to say that this is because they judge another culture solely by the values and standards of their own culture. Of course, seeing other cultures as different doesn't necessarily mean that we see them as superior. The example that was given in this course document of ethnocentrism, bizarrely, is in relation to Cuba and the American invasion of Cuba in 1960, following the Cuban revolution, which brought Fidel Castro to power. Now, it's news to me that the Americans aided Cuban exiles in the invasion of Cuba in 1960 because they regarded America as superior to Cuban people. It was, of course, a geopolitical event at the height of the cold war, and there's a historical context that seems to be wholly missing from the text that describes what happened in Cuba all those years ago. There doesn't appear to be any mention whatsoever of the nature of the Castro regime, which was imposed upon Cuba following the ejection of the equally awful person Fulgencio Batista, who was the dictator of Cuba before Castro succeeded.

This, I think, is deplorable, because if a generation of children is brought up with misconceptions being taught at school in this way, then that is undoubtedly going to bias their view of the subject that that is an example of. Now, of course, the Castro regime has been condemned by human rights organisations roundly over many, many years. Human Rights Watch has said that, under Fidel Castro, the Cuban Government refused to recognise the legitimacy of Cuban human rights organisations, alternative political parties, independent labour unions or a free press. He also denied international monitors, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and international non-governmental organisations like Human Rights Watch, access to the island to investigate human rights conditions. One of the reasons why the Americans supported the invasion of Cuba in 1960 was because they thought that capitalism, free enterprise and democratic societies were superior to communist society. Surely we've enough experience of communism in the last 100 years, perhaps, not to think that that is a challengeable proposition. So, to describe that as an example of ethnocentrism is actually a total misleading of the children who were being taught it. Now, if that is happening in that one area, it can be happening in others as well. This is a very important element of education that is perhaps not being well taught.

There are many other controversial topics where there is another side to the case as well, and I'm not sure that that is taught in school. Just take poverty, for example, and famine. What's the cause of poverty and famine, by and large? Why is it that some countries succeed in creating wealth and others don't, and that some countries have actually gone backwards in the last century, compared with where they were in the early part of the twentieth century? If you look at the richest countries in the world, they're countries like Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea, which were nowhere 50 years ago in the tables of wealth creation, whereas Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Argentina have all gone the other way. In the 1920s, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world, and thanks to decades of misgovernment by leftist and quasi-fascistic political parties and kleptocratic leaders, Argentina's economy was ruined. So, there are many reasons why wealth is created, but generally speaking, state control isn't one of them.

In relation to poverty in developing countries, the intellectual infrastructure of wealth creation is simply not there. Is 'trade not aid' taught in schools, for example? Professor Peter Bauer, who was a professor of international development economics when I was a student back in the 1960s, said that aid, generally, is taxpayers' money that is collected from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries, and we've seen many examples of that demonstrated over the years. Now, I'm not suggesting that overseas aid is always bad, of course—lots of aid projects are good—but if you convey the impression that the only way in which poor countries can become rich countries is by a transfer of wealth from richer countries, then that is, again, a misunderstanding of the nature of the economic process. Competition is a discovery process: bad ideas don't succeed, good ideas do. So, these are issues that ought to be properly factored into the curriculum. We have issues such as intergenerational wealth transfer, as well, in relation to poverty. In this generation, we frequently hear people talking about austerity, but what is austerity? Austerity is our experience of the last seven years of Conservative Government where the national debt has doubled. Now, that is an intergenerational wealth transfer; we are spending today money that will have to be paid back by generations of tomorrow. Are these issues properly dealt with in the Welsh bac course? I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever.

There is a course called 'consumerism'. Now, there's a loaded term, if ever there was one. I looked up the definition of this in a dictionary and it was described as 'the belief that increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable'. Well, there are not many people, I think, who would regard the increasing consumption of goods as being a bad thing, and generally speaking, the poorer you are, the more goods you want to consume. This is a good thing. So, why are we teaching something called consumerism to children in schools? It all goes back, I suppose, to the Rousseauian idea of the noble savage—back to nature, the simple life where we scratch a living from the soil—but this isn't the kind of lifestyle that normal people want to pursue.

'Normal' people?

Yes. Normal people, real people. Let's say ‘real people’ then. [Interruption.] Well, I don't recognise many faces around here of people who've followed, in their own private lives, a hair-shirt austerity programme. We all enjoy very comfortable—[Interruption.] Well, we all enjoy extremely comfortable lives, earning very large sums of money compared with the average and I think it is patronising and condescending to describe the desires of ordinary people as 'consumerism'.

Global warming is another controversial issue—[Interruption.] Yes, I am going to mention global warming, because the reaction of the education Secretary actually exemplifies everything that I'm talking about this afternoon. Because I hold views on global warming that are in a very small minority in this Assembly, but the way in which the education Secretary reacts when I raise issues of this kind is that I'm not entitled to hold these views, because there is no intellectual foundation for them at all, whereas, in fact, there is a very respectable debate going on amongst meteorologists and climatologists on these issues. Are organisations like the Global Warming Policy Foundation used in providing course materials on these issues in the Welsh baccalaureate? I very much doubt it. And yet, if we look at climate history, we've had cycles when global climate was warming and others when it was cooling. Roman times were very hot and medieval times were very hot, and in between we had little ice ages—we had one at the end of the seventeenth century. So, if we look at observational facts, then they don't actually bear out the climatic models that are based upon computer predictions.

These are controversies, and you may disagree with them, but we should certainly teach the other side of the case if we're to have a balanced debate on the topic, because we're imposing massive costs upon people by artificially increasing the price of energy. It may be a good thing that we're doing these things, I don't know. We don't have the means of being able to decide, because we don't understand the facts. Climatology itself is a highly complex matter. There isn't the historical data available anyway to compare one period with another, so we can't actually draw any conclusions from the very small changes that have taken place in temperature globally in recent years, because we can't compare with the previous generations in an arithmetic way. And we don't know, anyway, how far current trends will last.

So, there are limitations to the information upon which theories are based, and I don't believe that that is fully reflected either in the teaching that is undertaken in schools. All I'm saying in the course of this debate is that we should recognise that in all of these controversial topics, there is another side of the case, and that should be put so that children, yes, should be able to argue and make up their minds. We shouldn't treat this as a kind of article of religion, where there is no argument on the other side of the case—[Interruption.] Lee Waters says, 'Respect science'. Well, the science that I'm talking about is respected by Professor Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics at the University of Western Ontario, who is the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, by Sir Ian Byatt, director general of water services for England and Wales, Professor Freeman Dyson, fellow of the Royal Society, world renowned theoretical physicist and professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, by Professor William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton, Professor David Henderson, head of the economics and statistics department at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and many, many others in the list of those who support the attitude of scepticism that is the essence of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s work. It's not that they are pursuing a particular agenda to impose a view, because there is a variety of views, even within the Global Warming Policy Foundation—[Interruption.] 

Thank you. 

So, I believe what we should be doing in schools is teaching children that there are different views on things, even highly controversial topics where people sometimes see them in terms of black and white, encouraging argument, encouraging disputation, but at the end of the day teaching them to be critical. That's the most important thing that we can do, I think, in school: teaching children that they must be critical in their intelligence, always question and always look for facts, and not take political propaganda as truth.

Thank you. Can I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education to reply to the debate? Kirsty Williams. 

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I believe that the Welsh bac plays a key part in our national mission to raise standards by improving both the skills and the knowledge of our young people. It has been designed to give younger people a broader experience than they usually have through their traditional academic education. It prepares learners for life in the real world, equipping them with the skills to think for themselves and to take responsibility for independent research. Ironically, these are the very skills that will help young people to see through indoctrination, as mentioned in Mr Hamilton's title, if that was happening. 

Through the Welsh bac, learners can develop their knowledge and understanding of society and the community in which they live. They can also develop an awareness of global issues, events and perspectives and, of course, we expect headteachers and principals to use their professional judgment in determining the right learning programme for their learners. But I believe that it is our duty to provide future generations with the skills, knowledge and, I dare say, the evidence that they need to play a full and active role in their communities and the wider society, and the Welsh bac will help us fulfil that duty.

I am not particularly familiar with the resources quoted by Mr Hamilton, or the ones that he has referenced in his speech this afternoon, but he has offered up no evidence that anything but what I've just described is happening in our schools. The global citizenship challenge is an important area of study, I believe, and it points students and teachers to use a range of sources and materials to examine issues that are listed in the curriculum, and to consider other relevant factors. Indeed, for a child's work to be assessed and to pass in their personal standpoint area of this qualification—and I quote—they

‘must include: Differing views and opinions about global issues’

in their written assessments. They have to outline relevant factors, as well as forming their own opinion at the end of that piece of work. Those are the assessment criteria that are used to assess students' work in this regard. I would quote again that they must include other people's views or differing viewpoints and arguments on the topic they have selected.’

Now, it's not just me that believes that this is an important qualification. Qualifications Wales, an independent body, recently conducted a review of the qualification that concluded that learners are developing skills that are beneficial to their future. They stated that the principles of the Welsh baccalaureate and the skills challenge certificate are strong and they are relevant. Furthermore, they strongly advise that the skills challenge certificate element of the qualification is retained and updated.

Deputy Presiding Officer, as is to be expected with any review, there are recommendations for updates and refinements, and I would expect nothing less. The report noted that some aspects of this design and assessment are more complex than they need to be for children and practitioners, and there is some duplication of content and assessments across its components. Now, I welcome the actions that Qualifications Wales will be taking within their realm of responsibility, and I will soon be setting out my response to their report, and we will work with Qualifications Wales, the WJEC and the consortia to review their recommendations and implement changes. It's also worth noting that businesses and employers also recognise what the qualification can bring. To quote from the review:

'This report found that the Skills Challenge Certificate is a valuable qualification that helps learners to develop crucial skills. The skills that employers consistently say young people need to succeed in the workplace'.

Mr Philip Blaker, the chief executive of Qualifications Wales said, and I quote, 

'many teachers say the Skills Challenge Certificate is rewarding to teach and that students say they enjoy gaining new skills',

and the chance to focus on topics that are really of interest to them.

We also know that many schools and students recognise the benefits of the qualification, and we regularly receive feedback from schools and colleges on how the Welsh bac is benefiting our learners. Last year, Neath Port Talbot College's sixth-form academy achieved an amazing pass rate of 25 per cent of students gaining an A* or A, 60 per cent getting A* to B and 86 per cent getting A* to C. And more than 200 students achieved the advanced skills challenge certificate. These are outstanding results that have enabled our student and young people access to a range of university places and employment opportunities. As we heard from a former pupil at Dŵr-y-Felin Comprehensive School who achieved the advanced skills challenge certificate alongside three other A-levels: 

'Studying the WBQ enabled me to develop a range of skills that I would not have achieved from A Level study alone. In particular, my Individual Investigation on anxiety and depression will undoubtedly be beneficial in Cardiff University where I will be studying Psychology'.

These are, Deputy Presiding Officer, real examples of how the Welsh bac is benefiting people in Wales. I have also heard the Welsh bac being criticised recently because it is not accepted by universities. Let me make it absolutely clear to the students who are currently embarked on their Welsh bac journey—this is simply not true. The majority of universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, increasingly value the skills challenge certificate, and the Welsh baccalaureate for the skills that it has developed. I know this, because I've spoken to the admission tutors of both those universities, to hear from them directly, and many are prepared to accept it for entry requirement purposes. The advanced challenge certificate is comparable to an A-level, and universities across the UK are very positive, with the majority prepared to accept the new advanced Welsh bac as part of their entry requirements. It's worth noting that it attracts the same UCAS points as an A-level. Some universities have reduced the grade tariff required for some courses where applicants have achieved the Welsh bac. This is an indicator of their confidence in the qualification.

So, to sum up, a recent review of the qualification was positive, teachers enjoy teaching it, students enjoy studying it, and employers say it provides young people with the skills needed in the workplace. And many universities recognise it for their entry requirements. Those that don't still value it for its broader skills and experiences that it gives young people, and it can enhance their application. So, I am clear that we will continue to encourage universal adoption of the Welsh bac because it makes sense, because the evidence tells us that it's worth while and because I believe it will help us raise standards, reduce the attainment gap and deliver an education system that is the source of national pride and public confidence where young people will have the very skills to be able to challenge the views of the likes of Mr Hamilton.

Thank you very much. That brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.